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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You know, while we're at it, what the hell is up with piece of crap film Ran?

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).

Notice the poster who started this thread has yet to rear their head again? Maybe it's not on anymore!

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.

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.

First off, I voted no, I loved the trilogy.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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 and 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.

Nope. Loved them and can hardly wait for a 12 hour Lord of the Rings-a-thon when the extended comes out in December.

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.

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.

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.

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-