DVD Talk
LOTR, Overrated? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : LOTR, Overrated?


maveric
09-28-04, 02:57 AM
I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.

While I think the LOTR movies are decent, I'm surprised how many people consider LOTR the best movie trilogy of all time. IMHO, I don't think they're even in the same ballpark as Star Wars 4-6, Indiana Jones or the Godfather (even considering #3).

I found the LOTR movies to be generally overly drawn-out with many unnecessary scenes. In fact, I actually fell asleep during #1 and #3. IMHO, they could have, and should have, edited down the LOTR trilogy to a bilogy.

All I know is that I definitely have a hard time seeing any of the LOTR multiple times (unless I have problems falling asleep). However, I have no such problems with the aforementioned trilogies.

FinkPish
09-28-04, 03:23 AM
I disagree. I think you should first fault the books for having overly long, unnecessary scenes. The movies are blazingly fast compared to the books.

I think it is unfair to compare this trilogy with Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I wouldn't consider them the same genre to begin with. The SW and Indy movies are meant to be throwbacks to the old serials from the 30s and 40s. LOTR is not, so it isn't paced nearly as quickly as those other two, and there is no reason it should be.

In terms of having a cohesion between the three parts of the stories, then I would say between these three LOTR is the best. I'm not saying its the best of all, but in terms of character, story and direction, it is very high up on the list, if not on the top.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 03:43 AM
http://petridish.net/pics/11755/cunningplan3.jpg

I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.

Might I ask what the fuck exactly does this mean?


I'm going to assume this means that you have seen 700 films. Which I have to ask why have you counted? For that matter 700 movies really is nothing unless you count quality over quanitity. I could watch 1,000 crap films and still not have that mean shit other then I wasted a lot of time.

Anyhow, I disagree with you. While I don't think LOTR is the shit that doesn't stink. I will say that it's venture into film making is amazing considering all the facts.

You are going to compare Star Wars with LOTR's let me get this out of the way. Lucas has already came out and said that LOTR influenced him to some degree.

I agree with FinkPish, you really can't compare them because they are really different beast. LOTR was one giant movie while SW could have been left alone with ANH.

Now lets take a look at the making of this. First you have a director that is not established enough in the hollywood scene. He has one mild hit in The Frightneers and is very much cult status with his other works. For a studio to intrust him on one of the most read books around and with that budget to make this film not condesensed into one film, but to be filmed altogether to make a 9 hour epic film is beyond believable. Think about that. What if Fellowship failed in the box office? This was one great leap of faith.

That alone is something I'm going to sit and think about since it's so beyond belief.

LOTR's gets a place on the list of my favorite trilogy films for that alone.


P.S. get your flame pants on.


http://petridish.net/pics/17225/ballot2.jpg

FinkPish
09-28-04, 03:56 AM
Star Wars 4-6, what truly incredible movies! I can't believe it took so long to get these movies on DVD. I am now completely convinced that this is the best movie trilogy ever. You can never get sick of watching them, unlike those LOTR snoozers.

Just a tip: You aren't going to make a lot of friends here by coming in and automatically bagging on films that you think suck. Discussion is cool (that's the whole point of these boards), but to make this your own personal blog against LOTR is childish.

Rivero
09-28-04, 04:10 AM
The Lord of the Rings is one of the most beloved, popular and influential stories ever created. And now Peter Jackson's set of films are three of the most beloved films of all time. They will be watched and cherised and enjoyed for generations to come.


This thread is pretty much DOA.

MSD
09-28-04, 05:15 AM
Yes the LOTR films are very overrated. I never saw the appeal in them. I agree that they are drawn-out and pretty dull as well.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 05:24 AM
But do you understand their roots and influence on other great works? Do you consider how much of a creative effort it was to translate those books into 9/12 hours of one of the best book to film translation in film history?

700 movies under your belt should be able to atleast give you that.

Again I agree with Finkpish. Discussion is great, but to have your second post on an internet forum to be a flame war/troll coming out party, you pretty much kick any civil discussion out the window.

Corvin
09-28-04, 06:29 AM
LOTR is not my favorite trilogy because New Line took a chance, but because I think the films themselves deserve that title. So, no, I do not think the films are overrated.

caligulathegod
09-28-04, 07:12 AM
Read the books. Without a complete reimagining of the original story there is no way to streamline these stories any more than they are. Go to a Tolkien themed message board and the people there will tell you they aren't satisfied unless the movies are 30 hours long and every character and event is dramatized. What Peter Jackson did was a compromise between fans of the book and needs of the cinema.

Believe me, there was plenty of streamlining. Characters were combined and altered so that they would work in a different format (the book can tell you how bad the Ring is, but in the context of a film without a narrator, if the Ring has no effect on certain characters then the Ring loses its power-as in the changes to Faramir). Pages and pages of travelogue have been replaced by simple shots of the landscapes. Tolkien was very descriptive because, to him, this world existed. Not in a crazy schizophrenic way, but in the sense that he imagined a world as detailed as our own. He created multiple languages and etymologies for them and the names of the characters. Not only are there languages, but there are sublanguages and names that reflect how languages evolve through time.

These movies are cut to the bone compared to the books. The original tales have backstories back 30,000 years or more. Everytime a character mentions some legend or hero of the past, know that there is nearly complete histories and lineages for that character or event. There are multiple themes that have gone by the wayside to streamline the film. For instance, in the book, after the destruction of the Ring, there is another 100 + pages. Among the themes is the growth of the Hobbits. One of the running gags in the books is that no one else has ever heard of Hobbits, or if they have, they have no tales or songs about them. Hobbits kept to themselves for 1000s of years. Now, Hobbits have changed the course of the world and have recognition. The Hobbits now are able to go back to the Shire and set right the intruders and ruffians that have invaded while they were gone. The movie decided the most important story was the destruction of the Ring and the restoration of the King.

The Extended Version was made for the fans. You would find the added scenes quite extraneous, but they add to the depth and richness of the story. Tolkien himself said that some people prefer to read the books alone and see the allusions to backstory and characters as unexplored horizons that add to the texture. Others want to know everything about everything. Lord of the Rings is all that. You don't have to know who the great great great great great great great great grandfather to Aragorn is, but others do, and that information is available to them. The films are just an approximation and shadow of the true depth of the books. What you find unnecessary can be the favorite moment of a fan.

Hiro11
09-28-04, 07:17 AM
These movies are the best example I can think of of how to adapt an extremely beloved but (let's face it) bloated and overwrought book and make it:
1. accessible to Joe from Kansas
b. loyal to the book enough to please Blackthorne the Dragonmage
III. a big enough artistic triumph that it's universally critically acclaimed and showered with awards.

What Jackson pulled off is truly astounding both as a logistical and artistic effort. You call the films snoozers. On the contrary, it's truly a measure of the trilogies success that, even though each movie is 3 hours long in its theatrical version, almost everyone prefers the even longer extended versions. If that's not a testament to PJ's ability to hold an audience's attention, I don't know what is.

So, no, I don't think they're overrated. In fact, twenty years from now, people will still be watching these movies as a model of how to do a literary adaptation.

Supermallet
09-28-04, 07:48 AM
You know, while we're at it, what the hell is up with piece of crap film Ran?























;)

Shannon Nutt
09-28-04, 07:59 AM
Overrated in the sense that some people think they are the greatest movies of all time - yes. But they ARE very good and well-made movies and far better than most of the big budgeted "epics" Hollywood has been delivering to us in the past decade or so (which is one of the reasons people think so highly of the films, I suppose).

Dr. DVD
09-28-04, 08:03 AM
Notice the poster who started this thread has yet to rear their head again? Maybe it's not on anymore! ;)

Joe Molotov
09-28-04, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by maveric
I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.

You've seen that many movies? I've owned almost that many movies, but I still wouldn't call myself a big movie buff. I don't know movies inside and out. I don't know who won Best Director in 1957 (It was George Stevens, but I had to look that up). I couldn't write a 15 page essay over The Godfather and it's influences in modern cinema. I'm just a guy that likes movies, and The Lord of the Rings are three of the movies that I like the most. The year seems empty now without a LOTR movie to cap it off. You may call them overly drawn-out, but I think they were taking the time to do it right.

King Jaspo
09-28-04, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by maveric
I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.

Why does putting 700 movies under your belt make you a big movie buff? I would think it would be uncomfortable and make you look fat.

Joem
09-28-04, 08:31 AM
First off, I voted no, I loved the trilogy.

Originally posted by maveric
.I found the LOTR movies to be generally overly drawn-out with many unnecessary scenes. In fact, I actually fell asleep during #1 and #3.

How in the world could you fall asleep during the first one??? I'll agree, the 2nd and 3rd did have some drawn out slow parts (though I loved those as well), but man, I thought the first one had the best pacing and couldn't imagine falling asleep during it.

Ketamine
09-28-04, 08:50 AM
I watched the first one before I read the books. While I thought it was ok, I didn't love it thought that peaked my interest enough that I went out and read the books before seeing #2. After reading the books, I liked the movies a lot more. Not knowing the charters up front, I also thought that the first one was very slow the first time I watched it. The 2nd time I changed my mind and thought it was well done. Not the best triology of all time but right up there with the best.

cactusoly
09-28-04, 09:29 AM
Good movies ... actually great movies. Best films ever? ... far from it. Best series ever? ... ditto. Religous experience? ... nope so yess they are over rated.

On a side note... Fellowship of Thr Ring probably would have made more money if New Line $inema didn't try to screw over all of the independantly owned theatres with its inital distribution deal.

mike harnish
09-28-04, 09:29 AM
Mike from Kansas here (don't know where Joe went, but he's around somewhere). I love the LOTR movies, and agree with what's been said about what Peter Jackson was able to accomplish with the material he had to work with. Truly incredible!! When the extended edition of Return of the King comes out, a friend and I are going to get together and watch all three extended versions back-to-back-to-back. That'll be about 11 hours, not counting food and bathroom breaks. I'm really looking forward to it, and don't expect to be bored for a second--tired, yes, but not bored.

Giantrobo
09-28-04, 09:30 AM
You guys have posted some great stuff and I agree.

What Jackson did with the books was amazing. He could've easily and majorly fucked it up for everyone who saw the films.

But he didn't :D

i.e. Although I generally liked AVP I can certainly see what people hated about it. I mean look what Paul Anderson has done with the ALIEN/PREDATOR franchise. He's managed to piss off most fans <b><i>and</i></b> civilians with his poor choices. And that's considering the fact that the history and depth of the characters in the AVP world aren't even close to Tolkien's characters/world.

rexinnih
09-28-04, 09:32 AM
Nope. Loved them and can hardly wait for a 12 hour Lord of the Rings-a-thon when the extended comes out in December.

B.A.
09-28-04, 10:15 AM
Yes - Return of the King is over-rated. It's a good film, but nowhere near as good as the first two.

Fellowship of the Ring is a masterpiece. The Two Towers is a notch below FOTR.

Two out of three ain't bad.

DRG
09-28-04, 10:16 AM
Where's the "Somewhere In Between" option?

I didn't get the overboard appeal of the films until I saw Return of the King. Now I love the movies, but... I still think it's way too early to be declaring them the best anything of all time, whether it be trilogy, film series, epics, individual films, whatever. So I think they are overrated, but not in a "they're bad/boring/etc." way but in a "they're good but not THAT good" way.

silentbob007
09-28-04, 10:22 AM
I love the Lord of the Rings. I love Star Wars and Indy. None of them are overrated to me. If you feel differently, that's perfectly kewl ... it doesn't change how I view the movies I like. I've never seen the sense of comparing movies/trilogies like this ... it's like being a five year old saying "my dad can beat up yor dad" ... who cares. Enjoy what you like and don't get caught up in ranking things. :)

krazykat72
09-28-04, 10:42 AM
To be honest, I found them all to be somewhat plodding and some of the acting in in RotK was downright cringeworthy. They're decent enough, but are quite overhyped.

-Paul Jacobi-

fumanstan
09-28-04, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by krazykat72
To be honest, I found them all to be somewhat plodding and some of the acting in in RotK was downright cringeworthy. They're decent enough, but are quite overhyped.

-Paul Jacobi-

About my thoughts as well. And i fell asleep during Fellowship as well. Overrated.

maveric
09-28-04, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by krazykat72
To be honest, I found them all to be somewhat plodding and some of the acting in in RotK was downright cringeworthy. They're decent enough, but are quite overhyped.

-Paul Jacobi-
Thanks for the comment Paul. It's nice to know that there are others out there who feel the same.

I visited this site for the first time a week ago and noticed a lot of LOTR fanboyism. So I recently became a member to give my objective 2 cents.

I definitely think that all the LOTR movies were at least average. But a good gauge for me in determining the greatness of a film is the desire to see a film multiple times. I just don't have that desire with LOTR. You definitely would have to pay me some good money to see all 3 extended versions back to back.

Josh H
09-28-04, 12:12 PM
Not at all IMO.

I love the movies. Right behind SW 4-6 as my favorite trilogy. Ahead of Godfather as part 3 is weak (though I do like it) and just better than Indy or BTTF as a whole.

FinkPish
09-28-04, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Thanks for the comment Paul. It's nice to know that there are others out there who feel the same.

I visited this site for the first time a week ago and noticed a lot of LOTR fanboyism. So I recently became a member to give my objective 2 cents.

I definitely think that all the LOTR movies were at least average. But a good gauge for me in determining the greatness of a film is the desire to see a film multiple times. I just don't have that desire with LOTR. You definitely would have to pay me some good money to see all 3 extended versions back to back.

So you kept out of your own thread until someone came up with the same response as you did, so you could feel somehow validated? So glad you could come here to take us all down a notch.

Obviously, these aren't the films for you. Maybe its best to accept that and move on, because I doubt you are going to convert anyone here by spewing this stuff.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Thanks for the comment Paul. It's nice to know that there are others out there who feel the same.

I visited this site for the first time a week ago and noticed a lot of LOTR fanboyism. So I recently became a member to give my objective 2 cents.

I definitely think that all the LOTR movies were at least average. But a good gauge for me in determining the greatness of a film is the desire to see a film multiple times. I just don't have that desire with LOTR. You definitely would have to pay me some good money to see all 3 extended versions back to back.


BAW HA HA HA HA HA HA, way to ignore a thread till you got some other fella to agree with you. How about responding to the other page full of people who have given you fact after fact on why the films are great.

And could you fill us in on what those 700 films are? I want to know what really qualifies you as a movie buff.

Get Me Coffee
09-28-04, 01:43 PM
I'm with you Josh!

SW 4-6 and LOTR are tied at the top spot! LOTR replaced Indy and BTTF as my favorite Trilogies.

maveric
09-28-04, 01:53 PM
So much venom here, a clear indication of rampant fanboyism.

Look LOTR fanboys, I didn't bash LOTR. I just think it's overrated! I still think that they are decent films, Hobbits and all. Yes, they made me fall asleep. But that doesn't mean that they weren't good.

Let's try to remain civil here. Also, please do not post if LOTR is the only trilogy that you've seen. Thanks. :)

FinkPish
09-28-04, 02:02 PM
You never once said that you thought they were decent films, though. Mentioning that you fall asleep doesn't necessarily indicate that you like a film. All you have given us are references to the fact that you didn't like the films. Which is fine, but just because someone has a contrary opinon doesn't automatically make them a "fanboy."

I'm not defending the films necessarily, but I have a problem with people starting threads only to wait for a response that validates their own opinion. And stop with this condescending bullshit, or go back to writing about golf.

Jack's Smirking
09-28-04, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by maveric
So much venom here, a clear indication of rampant fanboyism.

Look LOTR fanboys, I didn't bash LOTR. I just think it's overrated! I still think that they are decent films, Hobbits and all.

Please do not post if LOTR is the only trilogy that you've seen. Thanks. :)

This post would have been much more effective if you could have fit in a few more variations of "fanboy". Might I recommend fanboyishness, fanboyocity, and/or fanboytastic ?

Oh, and BTW, I have never read the books, and frankly had no desire to see FOTR when it first came out. My girlfriend forced me to go, I thought it was amazing, and I've subsequently seen (and purchased) each of the films. I thought they were positively fanboyillient.

maveric
09-28-04, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
You never once said that you thought they were decent films, though...
The second sentence of my original post seems to refute this claim.

FinkPish
09-28-04, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by maveric
The second sentence of my original post seems to reflect this thought.

Fair enough, but I think my problem still is that you are treating anyone with a contrary opinion like the basest fanboys. That, and the fact that you only responded to someone with the same opinion. It makes you come across like you are bashing the films, by highlighting only the negative opinions.

island007
09-28-04, 02:15 PM
Some Star Wars fanboys like to start threads to bash LOTR.
Some LOTR fanboys like to start threads to bash Star Wars.

Many movie fanboys just accept both for what they are and enjoy them.


Anyway, welcome to the forum.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by maveric
So much venom here, a clear indication of rampant fanboyism.

Look LOTR fanboys, I didn't bash LOTR. I just think it's overrated! I still think that they are decent films, Hobbits and all. Yes, they made me fall asleep. But that doesn't mean that they weren't good.

Let's try to remain civil here. Also, please do not post if LOTR is the only trilogy that you've seen. Thanks. :)

I think Civility was tossed out the window when you started off saying it was overrated and followed it with the many versions of "fanboy". It's not really a good term around here. May want to change it to something less flame war causing.

The point is you come off saying that you are film buff. Regardless of you falling asleep in the theater, you have to give credit for what the movie did. Now the film may not have been better then SW to you, but since a lot of elements were taken from LOTR and put into SW, you have to ask yourself if you can really hate one and love the other.

Also, everyone has an opinion. You can't prove an opinion wrong because it's an Opinion. But it really doesn't mean that you should start a thread for every single opposing opinion you carry. Think of what shit you would have gotten for posting this in dvdtalk in the LOTR:EE thread the way you said it? That is really what it comes down to also. The way you expressed your point. You are new to the forum. How about taking a few days to lurk a bit and see how the forum posting style is like and get the flow of the place instead of jumping in and screaming fire in a crowded room just for the hell of it?

You want to have a civil discussion about the movies this was sure not a way to go about it.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 02:25 PM
Also, you expressed your opinion but ignored any one else's opinion that did not agree with yours. How about responding to some of those who actually opposed your veiws by quoting them and trying to discuss what the opposing view to yours was saying Mr. 700 movie buff.

Hiro11
09-28-04, 02:39 PM
Best thread ever?

Doughboy
09-28-04, 02:48 PM
I've always felt the films were overrated. At least if the IMDB Top 250 voting is any indication. All 3 LOTR flicks in the Top 10? Please! Fellowship is the only one I'd consider a great film.

The Ents and Faramir portions of The Two Towers were slow, and Faramir did a complete 180 at the end of the film that made no sense to me(the EE makes this slightly less glaring).

And The Return of the King, while better than The Two Towers, had an annoying deus ex machina with the ghost army and an ending that didn't know when to wrap it up. And let's not forget how Peter Jackson removed Saruman from the film completely, creating a 3 hour and 20 minute "epic" of good vs. evil with no one to represent the bad guys other than a fiery, glowing eye atop a tower. Give me Emperor Palpatine over that any day of the week.

I'm not saying the movies suck. They're very good films. Fellowship is a borderline 4 star movie. The Two Towers a solid 3. And Return of the King 3 1/2. But there are better trilogies out there. Star Wars, Indy, The Godfather(Part III was weak, but the first two are classics that more than make up for it). Hell, I personally prefer the Genesis Trilogy from Star Trek(Parts II, III, and IV) over LOTR.

And don't give me that crap that I'd enjoy the films more if I'd read the books. True, reading the novels would enhance my understanding of the story and the characters. But I didn't need to read Mario Puzo's The Godfather in order to appreciate that movie and the same should apply to any other film adaptation of a book, including LOTR.

NoxHaveN
09-28-04, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Hiro11
Best thread ever?

:lol:

Get Me Coffee
09-28-04, 02:57 PM
http://home.earthlink.net/~zolanhunter/images/BanHim.jpg

Joe Molotov
09-28-04, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Look LOTR fanboys, I didn't bash LOTR. I just think it's overrated!

And as we all know, overrated just a nice way of saying "Everyone's wrong except me!!!" If you're going to come in here and start a topic to give us your "objective 2 cents" and set all the LOTR fanboys straight about why they're all wrong, maybe you should come up with something a little bit better than saying they were too long and you fell asleep.

NaturalMystic79
09-28-04, 03:02 PM
The films are good, but not great.

Drop
09-28-04, 03:34 PM
Fellowship is a masterpiece (both versions), and deserves all the acclaim and should have won every Oscar it was nominated for, but I think Two Towers is the lesser of the three films.

It was a little badly paced, and just overall less interesting, and a little corny, specifically anything with Gimli.

The only real faults with the third one is it went on too long, and I felt it also had pacing problems, but it was much more interesting and intense than TT. However I feel ROTK is the most overrated of the bunch, just because I think FOTR was that much better.

I guess the trilogy is overrated, but I have no problem with people thinking it's the greatest, there are far worse movies than these, so atleast people show some good taste.

majorjoe23
09-28-04, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by maveric
I visited this site for the first time a week ago and noticed a lot of LOTR fanboyism. So I recently became a member to give my objective 2 cents.


There is no such thing as an objective 2 cents. The phrase "My 2 cents" refers to an opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective.

jaeufraser
09-28-04, 05:01 PM
Ok a couple things. Someone who likes LoTR is not, by definition a fanboy. These were some of the most popular movies of all time, and reached an insanely large audience and massive critical acclaim.

Overrated. What does it mean? In general, if someone thinks a movie is overrated, it means they did not like a movie that everyone else did, and think everyone else is wrong. I wish that word would go away, because in general it is never used in the right situation. It's only used where someone wants to disagree with everyone else and really means nothing. Overrated means simply you don't like it as much as everyone else, though in many cases it sounds more like an arrogant "eveyrone else is batshit crazy they're not good movies".

In the end I think LoTR are fabulous movies. Granted, some people may not like them, but you should understand that millions upon millions do, and the cinematic impact of these films will more than likely be remembered for years to come. That's impressive, whether you like it or not.

Mr. Salty
09-28-04, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by majorjoe23
There is no such thing as an objective 2 cents. The phrase "My 2 cents" refers to an opinion. Opinions are subjective, not objective.
:up: I was just about to post the same thing.

I'm not usually one to scream "troll," but I think that fits you maveric. You joined the forum specifically to slag a popular series of films and hold yourself and your opinions to be superior to everyone else's. Your opinion is no more objective than anyone else's, because, you know, it's an opinion.

If this is all you have to contribute to the forum, I suggest you move on.

(And FYI, I'm not a "fanboy." I couldn't care less about the LOTR trilogy.)

Talkin2Phil
09-28-04, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser

Overrated. What does it mean? ...... It's only used where someone wants to disagree with everyone else and really means nothing.

I think water is overrated, I like air much more.

jaeufraser
09-28-04, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Talkin2Phil
I think water is overrated, I like air much more.

Dude no way, air puts me to sleep. Water kicks ass, almost as much as Star Wars.

Damn air fanboys.

FinkPish
09-28-04, 06:12 PM
I'm sick to death of these Air and Water apologists. Fire is the ultimate element, and anyone who thinks differently is on crack.

FantasticVSDoom
09-28-04, 07:41 PM
Is their anyway in hell to have the term "fanboy" banned from this site...And just to let you know, "earth" kicks all their silly little special edition water, air, and fire asses.

Cornholio
09-28-04, 07:53 PM
i realy dont like LOTR that much i had the first movie but then sold it.not realy my kinda flick.

matome
09-28-04, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by NaturalMystic79
The films are good, but not great.

I agree. I own all the theatrical DVD's but ROTK is still in the unwatched pile. I find I have to really be in the mood to watch them, especially with the 3+ hour runtimes.

Dr. DVD
09-28-04, 08:42 PM
Hate to say this, but I agree with Jack on this thread!

FWIW, I am watching the PT DVDs of SW in a drunken stupor, and they aren't that bad.

Big Worms
09-28-04, 08:59 PM
I for one loved them! IMO I don't think they are overrated.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Hate to say this, but I agree with Jack on this thread!

FWIW, I am watching the PT DVDs of SW in a drunken stupor, and they aren't that bad.

Join me, together we can bring an end to this pointless conflict!

maveric
09-28-04, 09:35 PM
Just to clarify, saying something is overrated is not saying it sucks. Case in point, everyone rates Citizen Kane at least "good." However, I think that most people would also say it's overrated.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 10:08 PM
there are better words then overrated. You started out with your little "700 movies under my belt" speech to sound like your opinion is more valid then the next guy when in reality it's just an opinion.

You didn't like it.. So freak'n what. Much like citizen. You may not have liked it. But your opinion doesn't change the FACT that Citizen Kane or for that matter LOTR is any less important for film history.

was it jaeufraser who mentioned the constant abuse and rape of the word Overrated? I agree with him. Use a different word to describe your feelings towards this movie because "OVERRATED" isn't working well to express your point. Also, marking anyone who actually enjoyed LOTR as a "fanboy" is stupid. no wait, it's beyond stupid. I'm not a LOTR fanboy. Infact I'm one that says that it is pointless to ever compare LOTR and SW. They are different beast and they were a success for different reasons.

For book to film translation, LOTR did wonders. Now can you address those post that disagreed with you?

Rivero
09-28-04, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Hiro11
Best thread ever?

No, that title is reserved for the eventual "Which is the better Film Trilogy - The Original Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings?" poll once the ROTK: Extended Edition is released on December 14, 2004.

Rivero
09-28-04, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Doughboy

And The Return of the King, while better than The Two Towers, had an annoying deus ex machina with the ghost army and an ending that didn't know when to wrap it up. And let's not forget how Peter Jackson removed Saruman from the film completely, creating a 3 hour and 20 minute "epic" of good vs. evil with no one to represent the bad guys other than a fiery, glowing eye atop a tower.

The Extended Edition will help these problems.

Rivero
09-28-04, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
FWIW, I am watching the PT DVDs of SW in a drunken stupor, and they aren't that bad.

Any steaming pile of shit is watchable when you're intoxicated. Watch them again tommorow afternoon. You'll feel guilty and dirty, like waking up in bed with an ugly broad who seemed pretty hot the drunken night before.

Jay G.
09-28-04, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Just to clarify, saying something is overrated is not saying it sucks. Case in point, everyone rates Citizen Kane at least "good." However, I think that most people would also say it's overrated.
Personally, I think Citizen Kane is great film, although not my favorite. However, in the case of Citizen Kane being labeled the "greatest American film ever," you have to look at the criteria for rating that. Is the greatest film just the film the majority like the most? Or do you take into consideration the considerable new ground Citizen Cane covered, and its massive influence on the future of film?

Overall, I don't like lists or rankings of films that much. What matters most is your own opinion of a film. So you didn't like Citizen Kane that much, so what? So you didn't enjoy LOTR as much as others did, who cares? Why do you need to start a thread for someone else to validate your opinon?

Rival11
09-28-04, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by maveric
I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.

While I think the LOTR movies are decent, I'm surprised how many people consider LOTR the best movie trilogy of all time. IMHO, I don't think they're even in the same ballpark as Star Wars 4-6, Indiana Jones or the Godfather (even considering #3).

I found the LOTR movies to be generally overly drawn-out with many unnecessary scenes. In fact, I actually fell asleep during #1 and #3. IMHO, they could have, and should have, edited down the LOTR trilogy to a bilogy.

All I know is that I definitely have a hard time seeing any of the LOTR multiple times (unless I have problems falling asleep). However, I have no such problems with the aforementioned trilogies.

This was worse than my first post (or maybe this is your third?)

Here's a quick bit of news for ya:

I myself can't stand any of the LOTR films, In fact they kind of annoy me, but guess what? They are amazing films - I've seen the first two and completely understand why people are in love with them but movies like this just aren't my thing but like I just said, just because I don't like them doesn't mean they aren't great................that my friend is called "being open-minded" - I think the direction is great, story is more than solid, and the acting and many other things I'm leaving out are perfect - I just don't like movies of this material, but I do apprecaite them and applaud the hard work of those who made it happen - no doubt.

Jackskeleton
09-28-04, 11:21 PM
My respect for you has increased by +5, Rival11. Very well said.

that post was either his second or first post. He only had two post at the time when this thread was created.

Gunde
09-29-04, 01:33 AM
Any popular movie will always be considered overrated, especially by those who didn't see it before all the hype began. Great expectations is always a bad thing to have before watching a movie for the first time.
If I were to watch Star Wars today for the first time ever, I'd probably go 'What's the big deal'.

maveric
09-29-04, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
... You started out with your little "700 movies under my belt" speech to sound like your opinion is more valid then the next guy when in reality it's just an opinion...
There seems to be some misunderstandings here.

I only stated the 700 movie thing to demonstrate that I've seen a fair share of movies from which to draw comparisons. I'm not saying it to boast or anything like that. That's just my Netflix ratings count. Really, all I'm saying is that I think that LOTR ranks pretty well against the 700 movies that I've seen, but I don't think that it's the absolute cream of the crop.

Over the last year, I just kept hearing people saying over and over that LOTR was the best ever. I started thinking that there was something wrong with me for thinking otherwise. It seemed like I was the only one who thought this.

Some of my favorite movies include Godfather I & II, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Terminator, Aliens, American Beauty, Spinal Tap, There's Something About Mary, Star Wars 4-6, Raiders of The Lost Ark, Manhattan, Memento, Mulholland Drive and Dr. Strangelove. So maybe LOTR just wasn't my "type" of movie.

So I wrote the original short post to gauge other people's feelings about the topic. I read my original post again and I don't understand why it touched some people's nerve. It was just supposed to be a simple "Yes" or "No" poll.

I guess some individuals would rather hijak a thread and engage in character assassination rather than vote "Yes" or "No." But it does make it more interesting. ;)

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 03:49 AM
The reason why it's on the top of the list at IMDB charts is because it is new. You will see that with any movie. Watch it when Episode III comes out. You will see that as #1. It's a flavor of a month list and should not be taken serious.

Now I have to ask you this... Have you even bothered reading the threads post besides the ones that agreed with you? Because if you wanted to pose this question to get some insight then you sure have ignored it because you haven't touched on ANYTHING anyone has said to claim that this film warrents the attention that it gets.

You don't understand how your original post could start a flame war because you are still fresh off the boat, wet behind the ears to the forum. Starting off your forum career with a thread like this isn't the best move. You shouldn't start a thread just to piss people off. By suggesting that it is an overrated film and why FANBOYS are strong behind this film, You are going to get flamed. Do you understand that?

So maybe LOTR just wasn't my "type" of movie.

You should have started it out better then "LOTR, OVERRATED? COME ON FANBOYS. ANSWER ME SO I CAN IGNORE YOU!!!!". Then to compare it to star wars... You really were asking for anything BUT civil discussion to happen in this thread.

I guess some folks would rather just respond to any few post that support his insane thoughts instead of responding to the two pages worth of post that are against your views and offer good points you just ignore because they do not follow your thinking.

kcbrett5
09-29-04, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Rivero
The Extended Edition will help these problems.


How exactly will it help clear up the fact that this huge battle to defend the town was completely useless because all they really needed was a bunch of ghosts to show up and kill everything in sight with no resistance?

cactusoly
09-29-04, 10:22 AM
why is it such a crime to criticize LOTR but perfectly OK to bash other series?

wordtoyamotha
09-29-04, 10:22 AM
These films had every chance in the world to let people down because of the great books, and yet they didn't IMHO. Great movies.

William Fuld
09-29-04, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Starting off your forum career with a thread like this isn't the best move.

:lol:

Josh H
09-29-04, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
How exactly will it help clear up the fact that this huge battle to defend the town was completely useless because all they really needed was a bunch of ghosts to show up and kill everything in sight with no resistance?

1. That's in the book, so take that issue up with Tolkien.

2. The battle wasn't useless, they had to hold out until they arrived. This is were the movie failed somewhat. In the books the battle of pellenor fields lasted days (or maybe even weeks, can't recall for sure) so they had to hold out for quite a while before Aragorn showed up with the army of the dead.

jfoobar
09-29-04, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Shannon Nutt
Overrated in the sense that some people think they are the greatest movies of all time - yes. But they ARE very good and well-made movies and far better than most of the big budgeted "epics" Hollywood has been delivering to us in the past decade or so (which is one of the reasons people think so highly of the films, I suppose).

That pretty much sums the issue up nicely.

maveric
09-29-04, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Doughboy
And don't give me that crap that I'd enjoy the films more if I'd read the books. True, reading the novels would enhance my understanding of the story and the characters. But I didn't need to read Mario Puzo's The Godfather in order to appreciate that movie and the same should apply to any other film adaptation of a book, including LOTR.
Well said Dough.

Similarly, if there is a great adaptation of a horrible story, does that automatically make it a great movie?

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 02:02 PM
Yet again you only respond to a post that is agreeing with you. Do you want to have a discussion about this or would you rather just have a circle jerk?

Listen. You may not have liked it. Some others may not have liked it. But that doesn't make it any less a powerful impact on film history. I hated Blade Runner DC. I can't stay awake during it. But I love the theater cut. Will I say that it is overrated? No. Because like in that situation, Overrated doesn't describe anything here.

And to say the books are horrible stories? WTF :whofart: You have got to be kidding me. How about this question. What if MANY other films have based or have had their trilogies and films influenced by a "horrible story"? Does that automatically make them horrible stories as well? by your logic it should.

I know a lot of people who never read LOTR's. The only reference they might have had was from reading THE HOBBIT in highschool. And they enjoyed it a great deal. In any book to film translation you will have those who understand or get something else from the film simply because they have read the source material. Harry Potter for example will give you some varied meaning when reading the book and watching the movie opposed to just doing one or the other. That doesn't mean that the movie or book are overrated. Just that you will get a different take on it by simply knowning more about that world created in the book. Neither LOTR or Harry Potter have been unaccessable by those who haven't read the books but have seen the films. You still get some great meaning and fully understand.

Hey, perhaps you didn't get much out of ROTK simply because you fell asleep during it? It's a long movie, why not try watching it again to see if it works for you on some level?

But to say that the creative effort and all that was done on the film to make it is just overrated because a vast majority of people have enjoyed it and hype it is silly. I'm sure STAR WARS would be considered the same by someone who is viewing it for the first time now a days.

They wont understand, like you, that it was important to film history because of many various reasons. They will just see that the old effects and talking gay robots and like you, lump it into a "Overrated" selection without really even describing why they didn't like it.

"Overrated" is a cheap cop out when you really don't know what the fuck to say about something you may not have enjoyed. Not saying every HAS to enjoy this film. But at the very least they should realize why others are enjoying it. Enjoying it enough to make you believe it is "overrated"

caiman
09-29-04, 02:21 PM
Hey Jack, you're expending too much mental energy on this guy.

krazykat72
09-29-04, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton


Listen. You may not have liked it. Some others may not have liked it. But that doesn't make it any less a powerful impact on film history.




I don't think it's going to have a powerful impact on film history. I seriously doubt it'll have a Pulp Fiction like effect where everyone starts aping Peter Jackson and starts cranking out long fantasy epics. They'll be remembered as big box office hits, but the fever will die down in a few years ala Titanic IMO.

-Paul Jacobi-

jaeufraser
09-29-04, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by krazykat72
I don't think it's going to have a powerful impact on film history. I seriously doubt it'll have a Pulp Fiction like effect where everyone starts aping Peter Jackson and starts cranking out long fantasy epics. They'll be remembered as big box office hits, but the fever will die down in a few years ala Titanic IMO.

-Paul Jacobi-

While it won't be Star Wars in changing the industry, I think LoTR's impact will be moreso in being revered and remembered. It might not be copied ad nauseum (though, in truth, the gluttony of big budget battle movies, which was begun with Braveheart but completely given a kick in the pants by LoTR) shows some obvious financial influence. Special Effects wise, the films have done some truly new things which no doubt will inspire. But most importantly, there aren't many franchises ever that reach this sort of mass popularity. If we ever see a film that aspires to be a trilogy of this sort, or reaches for this epic type of storytelling, no doubt LoTR will have had filmic repercussions in helping those get made. Remove LoTR I seriously doubt the upcoming Narnia films would even exist. It's impossible to connect a direct link between film and influence nonetheless, but I have no doubt these films will be remembered and loved for quite a long time.

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 03:03 PM
The impact it can make is how studios see trilogy films. SW wasn't green lighted as a trilogy till it proved to be a success. Same goes with Godfather, Indiana jones, etc. But LOTR was, from the get go, ment to be that way with how they filmed it back to back to back. Jaeufraser has it right. Narnia films show that studios are now more willing to take the risk in making a series of films. Effects, while sometimes a little choppy, have been pushed up a notch. A lot of things will come out of this film.

Hell, it just winning so many oscars alone impacted film history. ;)

maveric
09-29-04, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
"Overrated" is a cheap cop out when you really don't know what the fuck to say about something you may not have enjoyed...
I generally don't respond to individuals who feel the need to use excessive profanities to get their point across, but I want to clarify the use of the term "overrated" in the context of this thread.

What I am posing is the question whether LOTR is overrated as "the best movie trilogy of all time." I thought that this was clear in my original post, but apparently not.

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 03:30 PM
I generally don't respond to individuals who feel the need to use excessive profanities to get their point across, but I want to clarify the use of the term "overrated" in the context of this thread.


funny, I thought you don't generally respond to individuals who don't automaticlly agree with your stand point on the matter.

Like I said, You haven't even responded to any one single post that was not agreeing with your views of the film. You responded to mine. But you only focus on how I carry myself on message boards towards others. You haven't touched and I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even ready anything I have said that does not agree with your dislike of the films. If you want to have a one sided conversation why not go talk to a mirror or brick wall?

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 03:41 PM
I generally don't respond to individuals who feel the need to use excessive profanities to get their point across

Well... I'd NEVER!!! You sir, have insulted my honor! Pistols at dawn! I say, PISTOLS AT DAWN!

Dr. DVD
09-29-04, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Rival11
This was worse than my first post (or maybe this is your third?)

Here's a quick bit of news for ya:

I myself can't stand any of the LOTR films, In fact they kind of annoy me, but guess what? They are amazing films - I've seen the first two and completely understand why people are in love with them but movies like this just aren't my thing but like I just said, just because I don't like them doesn't mean they aren't great................that my friend is called "being open-minded" - I think the direction is great, story is more than solid, and the acting and many other things I'm leaving out are perfect - I just don't like movies of this material, but I do apprecaite them and applaud the hard work of those who made it happen - no doubt.

Uh...wow.

That is one of the most sensible and well thought out posts I have ever read. Typically people who don't like LOTR just say: "Fantasy blows, and this movie is no exception. I would rather be having a threesome with Jessica Simpson and Jules Asner than watching this crap."
I really have a lot of respect for someone who doesn't like a film but can still appreciate its merit.

Oh, and FWIW, here are some pics of the ladies I mentioned. ;)

http://www.maximonline.com/girls/jules_asner/gm_l5.jpg

http://www.maximonline.com/girls/jessica_simpson_2/gm_l6.jpg

Jackskeleton
09-29-04, 04:00 PM
http://petridish.net/pics/16602/quagmirelq.gif

FinkPish
09-29-04, 04:13 PM
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

Rival11
09-29-04, 04:32 PM
Damn, the Doc and Jack giving me thumbs up? Good stuff.

While I definitely like to have fun here and chat, I know a lot of my posts may come off as "what the hell?" or taking entirely in the different direction intended - but that's expected on any forum from time to time (even if it happens more often than time to time ;)

It's true though, there are a lot of movies I hate but do appreciate and if you notice, I rarely ever hop into a thread and start bashing something I never liked in the first place - I've always thought that's the most mindless thing anyone can do, but I will admit.................just the title alone of "AVP" really bugged me :)

Oh and Doc, the pics were expected :up:

And Caiman - I expected a much better bash from you in your reply, but hey, everyone has an off day.

Rival11
09-29-04, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

:lol:

Dr. DVD
09-29-04, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php


rotfl



Rival, you're welcome for the pics. But then again, isn't it a rule that if you mentione a beautiful woman you must post a pic? Besides, imagine the shock a lurker would have reading a thread like this and coming across those shots. ;)

El-Kabong
09-29-04, 06:38 PM
Well, a couple of major points here:

1) This is the wrong way to go about introducing yourself to the forum. I agree with you, but the post seems very "troll" to me.

2) 700 movies aint jack. I'm taking it slow when I do 700 in a year.

3) I think the Lord of the Rings sucks ass. If it works for you (you being the fan of the books), great - but for me, I hated them. Way too long, way too many characters with way too much backstory and way too much history of the universe.

And way, way WAY too long. A good editor could have trimmed these suckers down by an hour easy. (But then they wouldnt be the books! Fine - Tolken badly needed a good editor trimming the fat from his novels then).

4) Star Warz R0X0R TEH BIG 1 !!!!11! (sorry, sorry :) )

GreenMonkey
09-29-04, 07:04 PM
BEST



TRILOGY


EVER


:D

Fellowship is my favorite movie ever. At least until someone makes a good fantasy movie from a better fantasy novel. :D

No big kudos to TTT, ROTK was good but rushed. Needed more time, and the scouring at the end. :D


As far as falling asleep, you fell asleep during LOTR? What do movies without action in them do to you then?? :D

jaeufraser
09-29-04, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Dr. DVD
Uh...wow.

That is one of the most sensible and well thought out posts I have ever read. Typically people who don't like LOTR just say: "Fantasy blows, and this movie is no exception. I would rather be having a threesome with Jessica Simpson and Jules Asner than watching this crap."




So, like, what about having a threesome with Jules Asner and Jessica Simpson WHILE watching LoTR? Is that an option? If so, count me in.

Dr. DVD
09-29-04, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
So, like, what about having a threesome with Jules Asner and Jessica Simpson WHILE watching LoTR? Is that an option? If so, count me in.

I guess it could be, but I wouldn't be paying much attention to it while I was with them! :D

Rivero
09-29-04, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by kcbrett5
How exactly will it help clear up the fact that this huge battle to defend the town was completely useless because all they really needed was a bunch of ghosts to show up and kill everything in sight with no resistance?

You shall see.

Patience, my dear boy, patience.

http://www.lordoftherings.net/media/desktops/dvd_witchking_800.jpg

Rivero
09-29-04, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
So, like, what about having a threesome with Jules Asner and Jessica Simpson WHILE watching LoTR? Is that an option?

I'd trade Simpson for Maria Menounos, a self proclaimed Ringnut. :)


http://cdn.compuserve.com/gallery/i/m/menounos/lg2a.jpg



http://cdn.compuserve.com/gallery/i/m/menounos/lg8a.jpg

maveric
09-29-04, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
...Like I said, You haven't even responded to any one single post that was not agreeing with your views of the film...
I haven't responded because I don't really have a problem or strongly disagree with the reasons people have for rating the LOTR as the best trilogy. For the most part, people are making valid points.

Like I've said before, I think they are decent movies. If you look at my Netflix account I've rated them all 4 out of 5 stars.

I just think they had the potential to be 5 star movies in my book if they had been condensed a bit. Maybe 2 movies instead of 3.

Big Worms
09-29-04, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by maveric
...I just think they had the potential to be 5 star movies in my book if they had been condensed a bit. Maybe 2 movies instead of 3.

Heck I think that is what made them so great! Think about how many people have held out to get the Extented Edition where they are even longer.

Jackskeleton
09-30-04, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by El-Kabong
Educated points to why El-Kabong didn't like the film

see, I like your response because you express facts, or atleast you back up your opinion with a WHY to it. Something the original poster just decided to say "It was overrated because I fell asleep".

Jackskeleton
09-30-04, 12:42 AM
I just think they had the potential to be 5 star movies in my book if they had been condensed a bit. Maybe 2 movies instead of 3.

Ok, here's a valid question. Do you think that Star Wars IV - VI could have been condesensed to two movies or maybe even one? I mean there is two death stars, I'm pretty sure you can toss one out and still get the same effect right? See? when you condense something down you get rid of something that was important to it.

Folks love LOTR because it is a good book to film translation. Minus a few things it was pretty much directly off the books. Now those books are big. So this part of it, while doesn't sit well with you, is the main reason why others loved it. With the EE's you are not only getting the originals shown in theaters, but you are also seeing an expanded version of it. Now I hate to compare the two, but lets just say this... Does lucas allow you to view both the Originals as well as the expanded versions? ;)

jaeufraser
09-30-04, 02:42 AM
Well, maveric, everyone is allwoed to have their opinion. Just don't call everyone a fanboy and avoid the word overrated and you'll do just fine.

Though, personally, I'm glad the 2 movie thing (or one for that matter) never happened. In fact, the reason the film ended up at New Line at not through Miramax (aka Disney) was because they balked at the idea of a trilogy of 3 hour films. They wanted two (or even better one big long one!) which, by all means, would've been a massive disservice to the story being told. What made these so great was we got a fully fleshed out, massive epic story that was realized on a massive budget, and was good throughout. It was like a miniseries done at top quality level, something I can safely say has never been done, at least not that long. Star Wars in total is what, 6 hours overall? Not even half as long. I mean, can anyone name a 12 hour cohesive story-film that accomplishes so much on every level, both story character action special effects spectacle.

But, much like Kill Bill, there are those who'd rather it be just some 2 and a half hour movie. But then there are many of us who just cannot wait for the 4 hour 10 minute extended edition. There's so much rich story, honestly I do get the sense that many of those who find the films too long, also probably would find any 4 hour film too long. I never understood it, but some people feel that anything over 2 and a half hours is just too long, regardless of what the story is. Not that that's you guy, but I've noticed in Hollywood (and definately years ago right around when Dances with Wolves came out) that long movies were looked down upon. Which, honestly, Kevin Costner deserves some credit, and Dances really gave some street cred to long movies. Even Jim Cameron gives Costner props for the success of that film which paved the way, nonetheless I recall critics who would critisize anything that was long just cause like long equaled too much. Fortunately, that's not longer the mindset.

Nonetheless, I'm rambling. I'm going to set my beer down and try to remember what my point was.

caligulathegod
09-30-04, 07:46 AM
These films really can't be compared to The Godfather. The Godfather book is a pulp novel that was elevated into art by the film. You don't need to read the Godfather to really understand it. Lord of the Rings, however, is nearly 1000 pages (depending on the edition) with 100 pages, or so, of appendices that further illuminate the story plus the Silmarillion, which is like an Elvish Old Testament. Tolkien had histories he had worked at for 50 years. Nearly anything anyone could possibly want to know (except, inexplicibly, whether or not Elves have pointy ears and if Balrogs have wings) is available. Or if you don't want to know, then you don't have to.

It's like baseball. You don't have to know Babe Ruth's batting average, but if you are inclined to, it makes the game that much more fun.

As far as the length, that is kind of the purpose. Tolkien wrote it because he wanted to try his hand at creating a really long epic story. Those of us that do, love it precisely because it is so long and epic. There is such depth and richness that one can emerse completely into it. Life is a long struggle towards an end. Lord of the Rings is kind of like life. We start off as children in our little world and then finally go out and make our way in the world. Tolkien's Hobbits had for 1000s of years kept to themselves and did little more than navel gaze. Then a few were given their opportunity to make a difference and through their own abilities and strengths, managed to change the world. We all have that potential in us.

You know who the best character is? It's Sam. He's not the smartest, he's not the strongest, he's not the tallest or most handsome, but what he does is just plug away. When he picks Frodo up to carry him up the last few steps of the mountain, as cheesy as the moment is, it makes me want to cry. He is what I aspire to be. I want to be the kind of friend that Sam is. What wouldn't we give to have a friend like Sam?

Now, as rich as the book is, a film can only be an approximation. Tolkien means so much to so many people that Peter Jackson tried to invoke it as much as he could within the limits of the medium. Could it have been sheared down a bit? Perhaps. But Jackson had so much respect for it that he tried to bring as much of the experience of the book as possible. To the unintiated, he put in too much; to the fans, he couldn't bring in enough. He made a reasonably successful stab at it, too. He put it in the context of a big bloated action movie, but there's still enough Tolkien in there for those with open minds to enjoy, especially in the extended editions.

I wouldn't have them any other way.

Rivero
09-30-04, 08:11 AM
^^^
What he said.

Dr. DVD
09-30-04, 08:14 AM
Jack: once again I have to agree with you. Costner did do a lot for the return of the three hour epic.

You also have to give PJ even more credit for making LOTR as a trilogy of three hour plus movies. Heck, IMO it's a miracle he got FOTR to be released the way it was in theaters.
"Okay people, we have invested $300 million in a trilogy, the first of which will be a low-action, character driven, 3-hour fantasy movie at the end of which the bad guys will more or less have won."
At the time of its release, many studios would have scoffed at such an idea, so kudos to New Line for allowing it to go that way.

maveric
09-30-04, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by jaeufraser
...Just don't call everyone a fanboy and avoid the word overrated and you'll do just fine.

To clarify, the fanboy term was directed at those engaged in personal attacks rather than constructive discussion of the topic. I think most would agree that someone who attacks another just for believing something is not the "best of all time" is somewhat of a fanboy. There were only a handful of individuals that this applied.

Also, I don't think the term overrated is improper when used in the context of "best of all time." In this thread "overrated" is synonymous with "best of all time."

Again, I think LOTR is good, but not the best of all time. Is that such a crime?

FinkPish
09-30-04, 12:37 PM
No crime in that. Could you clarify why you think they aren't the best of all time? I'm just curious, because the only criticism I've heard is that they are too long. Is that the only thing keeping them from moving up in your book? Would they have been better played out as a 12-hour mini-series?

Kal-El
09-30-04, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Again, I think LOTR is good, but not the best of all time. Is that such a crime?

Around these parts, yes. ;)

darqleo
09-30-04, 12:49 PM
caligulathegod = god

maveric
09-30-04, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
No crime in that. Could you clarify why you think they aren't the best of all time? I'm just curious, because the only criticism I've heard is that they are too long. Is that the only thing keeping them from moving up in your book? Would they have been better played out as a 12-hour mini-series?
I would say the editing is my primary concern. I do understand the argument about the adaption remaining true for all the books and I appreciate the insightful comments on this matter.

However, I believe that a movie should stand on it's own. To attain the title of "best of all time" I feel that this should be well satisfied. I also believe that a movie should be digestable in one sitting without having to take a dinner break. :)

Jack's Smirking
09-30-04, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Hiro11
Best thread ever?

I still say no, but it is rapidly climbing the charts

Josh H
09-30-04, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by maveric

To attain the title of "best of all time" I feel that this should be well satisfied. I also believe that a movie should be digestable in one sitting without having to take a dinner break. :)

"Best of all time" is a pointless thing to discuss anyway. It's more appropriate for people to say that LOTR is their all time favorite movie series.

Movies are entirely subjective, one person's trash is anothers treasure. Trying to say something is the best movie ever simply involves arguing that ones opinion is more valid than everyone elses, which is totally pointless.

Talkin2Phil
09-30-04, 01:58 PM
I think the OP needs to be more specific; overrated, best of all time, etc are terms that only start flamewars and not good discussions.

There was a rank the trilogies thread awhile ago

trilogies (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=380948&perpage=25&highlight=best%20trilogy&pagenumber=1)

FinkPish
09-30-04, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by maveric
I would say the editing is my primary concern. I do understand the argument about the adaption remaining true for all the books and I appreciate the insightful comments on this matter.

However, I believe that a movie should stand on it's own. To attain the title of "best of all time" I feel that this should be well satisfied. I also believe that a movie should be digestable in one sitting without having to take a dinner break. :)

So what do you mean by "stand on its own?"

Josh H
09-30-04, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
So what do you mean by "stand on its own?"

To answer for him with the standard definition of this:

That it isn't catered only to fans of the book and/or requires reading the source material to fully enjoy the films.

It's come up several times in LOTR threads. I don't think it's valid, as I know a ton of people that have never read the books and love the movies. If it didnt stand on it's own, most people who hadn't read the books wouldn't like the movies.

FinkPish
09-30-04, 02:21 PM
I don't think that's at all valid either, but I'll wait to see what he says. I also thought he could mean that they should be self-contained, not relying on the next or previous to support its narrative.

caligulathegod
09-30-04, 02:33 PM
To those raised on Spielberg and Lucas and Mtv, it looks and smells like an action movie so when it changes from that into more Tolkien-esque pacing(such as the supposed multiple endings), then it's easy to get bored. But, perhaps the films just aren't for you. That's no big deal. No one says you must like it. People tend to be more sensitive to pans because people in forums don't typically say, "I really don't care for fantasy or LOTR." They usually troll, "LOTR sucks, Star Wars teh 0wNz3rz!!11" It's been 3 years now and we've all pretty much had enough of people with nothing better to do than start threads telling us something we love is "overrated". While people do say they don't like other movies without incident, there usually aren't dozens of threads about those movies on how much they suck or we're stupid for liking them. Even if this thread didn't quite do that, it's still picking a scab that really didn't need picking. It is impossible to have a discussion on LOTR (or Star Wars, for that matter) without someone chiming in how much the films suck. There's really already a lot of threads about LOTR that could have been posted in or revived if you really needed to tell us you don't care for them. No offence, but we already know people don't like them. We're OK with it. "Overrated" is just a very charged word. As has been said, it implies that the speaker is correct and everyone else is wrong when the subject is completely subjective. A sports star can be "overrated" because he may get a lot of publicity with mediocre stats to back it up. A film can not be "overrated". There is no objective standard for judging the quality of a film. Just because a lot of people like a film and you don't doesn't mean the film is overrated. It just means you don't like the film.

Welcome to the boards, you seem reasonably intellegent, but a new thread using a poll containing such a charged word as "overrated" on a person's second ever post is really kind of obnoxious, considering the history of this particular film in this forum (and even your first post managed to insult the films while discussing something completely unrelated). You even admitted you joined the forum specifically to get a reaction from the "fanboys". Don't be shocked if you get one.

I hope enjoy the forum. Just be careful about what could be construed as "trolling".

Jackskeleton
09-30-04, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by maveric
To clarify, the fanboy term was directed at those engaged in personal attacks rather than constructive discussion of the topic. I think most would agree that someone who attacks another just for believing something is not the "best of all time" is somewhat of a fanboy. There were only a handful of individuals that this applied.



I really find that hard to believe considering you started out your thread with this in the first post. Meaning you had no one to direct it to. You just made a blanket statement against everyone who enjoyed the film or at the very least didn't think it was overrated.

I think most will agree that making a blanket stupid statement and then not supporting it with any real examples other then "I fell asleep" while also only responding to those who agree with his standpoint is a "troll". There was only one person this applied to.....

As the poster above me stated..
You even admitted you joined the forum specifically to get a reaction from the "fanboys". Don't be shocked if you get one.

You got a reaction for your bold blanket statement. Don't act so surpirsed.


Now, you finally quoted someone and actually expanded on why you disliked it

However, I believe that a movie should stand on it's own.

So lets compare for a minute with the other trilogy you loved. Empire Strikes back stands alone just as much as the LOTR films do. It leaves you with a cliffhanger. You can't say that everything was resolved and in many parts it added a lot more questions. Now if you were around for the theater release of empire and had to wait a couple years to get those answers, I'm sure you would also say that Star Wars is not the best ever because not all the parts stand on their own. It's a fuck'n trilogy. They are suppose to lean on each other to some degree. Back to the future as well. You can't tell me that you can watch the second or third part of the trilogy by themselves and never watch the next.

So the argument that it doesn't stand alone is silly.

maveric
09-30-04, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
To answer for him with the standard definition of this:

That it isn't catered only to fans of the book and/or requires reading the source material to fully enjoy the films...
Yes, this is exactly what I meant by "stand on it's own." Well said Mr. Hinkle.

GreenMonkey
09-30-04, 04:48 PM
How exactly will it help clear up the fact that this huge battle to defend the town was completely useless because all they really needed was a bunch of ghosts to show up and kill everything in sight with no resistance?

Let's say they didn't bother to defend Minas Tirith. Let's run with the logic here.


Orcs enter city.

Orcs kill people, subjugate the city, and use some people for slaves.


Little late for the ghosts to show up - imagine how many more people would die (and probably a lot of innocents).


Withstanding the enemy is the point of the defender.

There's a good Sun Tzu quote about the advantage of defenders, but I can't find it. Something to do with, the defender just has to survive to win, the attacker must crush the defender to win.

maveric
09-30-04, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by maveric
So much venom here, a clear indication of rampant fanboyism.

Look LOTR fanboys, I didn't bash LOTR. I just think it's overrated! I still think that they are decent films, Hobbits and all. Yes, they made me fall asleep. But that doesn't mean that they weren't good...
This is really the only point I address the so-called fanboys. Clearly it is aimed only at those posts with "venom." If your post wasn't vicious, then you weren't addressed.

Either way, there's no attack here levied at the fanboys. I only clarified that I wasn't bashing LOTR.

Brent L
09-30-04, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by FinkPish
I'm sick to death of these Air and Water apologists. Fire is the ultimate element, and anyone who thinks differently is on crack.

Blah blah blah, water and wind and fire and earth all suck. They all bow down to the power of HEART!

http://img45.exs.cx/img45/579/mati1.gif

Seriously though, I am another guy who is not a huge fans of the LOTR trilogy. I enjoyed watching them in the theaters, it was a great experience, but I just didn't care all that much about the films. The acting was top notch, the visuals were just wonderful, and I really liked how the film was shot.

I suppose I just didn't care for the editing, and so many extended scenes that felt like they went on forever, for no reason really. I know many loved the pace of all of the films, but there were times when I just stopped caring about what was going on.

I really love the extended DVD sets though. I really love to see how different films came to be and am a huge sucker for making ofs and behind the scenes material, so yeah...the DVDs are great.

I just didn't think much of the films overall. Yes they were great, but I just didn't personally enjoy them anywhere near as much as so many other people did. I was FOR the films winning the awards for visuals and that type of thing, but I was against them all for winning best picture.

From where I sit, far better films were released than Return of the King, or any of the films in the trilogy.

When compared to other trilogys, I'd rather watch Back To the Future, Star Wars, Godfather, Indiana Jones, and on and on over the LOTR films. Doesn't mean they aren't good movies though, because they are, it just means that I don't personally love them. There are plenty of films that I'd place over the LOTR trilogy.

There, is that a more reasonable explanation?

Jackskeleton
09-30-04, 05:09 PM
^^^Seriously, what the fuck kind of power is heart? :p


Yes, this is exactly what I meant by "stand on it's own." Well said Mr. Hinkle.

I would then have to disagree with that statement then. Just because YOU didn't enjoy it. I dont think you would have enjoyed regardless of having prior knowledge of the books. The poll shows 73% enjoyed the film. I'm positive that all 112 votes so far in favor if it being a good film haven't all read the book.

That shows that these films stood on their own. That it present enough knowledge that you did not need to have read the book to enjoy it. But for those who did, it offered a little more insight to it. Not only that, but there was also the Extended Editions out there for those who read the book and wanted some more.

Your defense that it was edited wrong doesn't have a leg to stand on because they did edit it well. The pacing is there for the first to films. While the last movie may have seemed oddly paced at the end, that is how it was written. That doesn't make it bad. It just makes it so that it was a direct translation. I'm sure when the EE comes out for ROTK you will see that the pacing is there or it is not as teasing as it may have seemed.

But all three films stand on their own. You don't need any reading of the books to understand the situation, the characters or the events that happen in it. If you do have that knowledge, then it is just a benefit. But without, it's still perfectly fine to view and it shows that many agree.

FinkPish
09-30-04, 05:13 PM
^^^Exactly. If the problem is that you don't think the films stood on their own, then please elaborate. You come in and make blanket statements but never back them up or explain what you mean.

Joe Molotov
09-30-04, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by maveric
Yes, this is exactly what I meant by "stand on it's own." Well said Mr. Hinkle.

Well, I think you're really wrong about that. The universal appeal of the LOTR movies has been nothing short of extraordinary, I think. If this was just some workman-like adaptation of a popular book designed just to appeal to fans, sure it might have made a little cash, but do you really think it would have made almost $3 Billion worldwide and garnered a total of 17 Academy Awards? If you total just the gross of Return of the King in non-English speaking countries, it's still several hundred million dollars! It's just plain wrong, and borderline insanity, to say that the LOTR movies can't stand on their own without the books and that it only caters to fans.

Rival11
10-01-04, 09:44 PM
maveric I gotta say.........you're making more contradictions than........well, say, a new member.

I know where you're "trying" to come from but you keep changing your prefrences because it seems like (well, screw that - IT IS LIKE other members are making you re-think your opinion) - that's what I'm getting from your replies so it may just be me but [supersmall font]I highly fucking doubt it[/supersmall font].

jaeufraser
10-01-04, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Joe Molotov
Well, I think you're really wrong about that. The universal appeal of the LOTR movies has been nothing short of extraordinary, I think. If this was just some workman-like adaptation of a popular book designed just to appeal to fans, sure it might have made a little cash, but do you really think it would have made almost $3 Billion worldwide and garnered a total of 17 Academy Awards? If you total just the gross of Return of the King in non-English speaking countries, it's still several hundred million dollars! It's just plain wrong, and borderline insanity, to say that the LOTR movies can't stand on their own without the books and that it only caters to fans.

Well, that's exactly it. It's really impossible to say that these books rely on reading the books or that they cater to a group of fans. These films have massive appeal, they don't require you to read the book (we don't need evidence of that...the story is in the movie, the books just make for gravy, but aren't necessary to understand).

Of course, that's why overrated is a pointless word. You say you only mean it's overrated as the best films ever. Now, in truth, most people don't say that. But some people do say that. And does that opinion have less relevance than claiming Star Wars, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Good Burger are best of all time? Not really, it's a very subjective thing, but considering the insane popularity of these films, the massive critical acclaim, I dont' think it's silly to think that these films definately are some of the best films ever to a very large group of people. And it's silly to say that they're wrong...cause well, that's their opinion, as is someone who loathes these films. But to pretend that somehow they're wrong, which is what overrated indicates ,is kind of pointless.

radiospots
10-06-04, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by MSD
Yes the LOTR films are very overrated. I never saw the appeal in them. I agree that they are drawn-out and pretty dull as well.

zzzzzz...I'm sorry, were you finished?

I am still baffled that some folks can't find the beauty in these amazing films. If 50 people to the right of you loved these movies and 50 people to the left you also found these movies amazing, what do you think went wrong with the movie? :brickwl:

Kumar J
10-06-04, 09:04 PM
I love this movie and I don't think they are overrated.I read the books before I watched the movie and it was really great what Peter Jackson did.New Line did an excellent job on this movie and I will support them on this movie

Jackskeleton
10-06-04, 09:54 PM
I think the word Overrated is overrated.

Troy Stiffler
10-06-04, 09:58 PM
Whenever I watch one (especially Return of the King), I feel emotionally bogged down for the rest of the day. It's like something that I just can't stop thinking about. Reading this thread makes me want to watch them.

I guess I'm in the minority thinking that Two Towers was the weakest? Fellowship is my favorite.

I think that means that is a good trilogy. A damn good trilogy. I don't care what anyone else says. And, no, I'm not going to read this thread, because I really don't care. I just read the first couple posts to see where the thread was going.

Rivero
10-06-04, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by troystiffler

I guess I'm in the minority thinking that Two Towers was the weakest? Fellowship is my favorite.


No, The Two Towers is generally considered the 'third best' of the series even by fans. Fellowship really is the best still, ROTK comes close in quality and the EE just may put it at the top.

jessecrx
10-07-04, 10:54 AM
(Raises Hand)

So would this count as a movie being able to stand on it's own without ever having to read the source material??

I watched The Outsiders without ever reading the book and I thought the story movie and story were pure gold.

How about movies like Christine or Stand By Me??

I watched the LOTR Trilogy and I thought they were very good movies....on the same level of goodness as Stand By Me and The Outsiders :)

TheAllPurposeNothing
10-07-04, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by maveric
I'm a pretty big movie buff with about 700 movies under my belt.


700 movies makes you a pretty big movie buff??

Let's break this up. Let's say you've viewed one movie a week since you were 7. At 52 movie a week, you would only be about 20...and even then, I would be far from considering you a big movie buff.

I had seen over 700 movies by the time I was 12. By the time I was seven, I was going to the movies at least once or twice a week (spent almost all of my allowance as a child on movies), and that doesn't count the three or so I saw weekly on TV. And that was pre-cable.

I would consider most passive movie viewers have well topped that in this day and age.

Wanna call yourself a big movie buff? You've got a lot more viewing to do.

nightmaster
10-07-04, 07:29 PM
This is a fabulous trilogy, and all three are great, great watches. It could be that I've been saturated with it for too many years, but I prefer it to SW 4-6. The Indy series may surpass LOTR in my eyes but by no means do I think it's overrated in an era where we see FAR too many movies made with no heart and soul whatsoever.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0