OK, I've seen all three now, and they seem to me like three of the worst films I've ever seen.
Can someone tell me why they are so popular?

Originally posted by rarstar
OK, I've seen all three now, and they seem to me like three of the worst films I've ever seen.
Can someone tell me why they are so popular?

Different tastes I suppose. In my case, I enjoyed the books and was suitably impressed by pj's interpretation to enjoy the films too.

Incidentally, why did you bother seeing the last 2 if you disliked the first so much?

I've never read the books, I'm talking about watching them as movies. Most people I know who like the films read the books first which is understandable. But if you look at them seperately as films, they are dire.

Well I was literally forced to see the third one by my girlfriend - she loves them. Couldn't really argue though as the week before, I bought tickets to watch Sheff U without telling her first - I knew if I did, she wouldn't come :)
The second one, she had on video, so it would have taken more effort to not watch it!

so whats your best few films then????

Jaws
The Sixth Sense
The Others
Signs
Old School
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Fight Club


I knew no-one would be able to tell me why everyone is obsessed with Lord Of The Rings.
No-one even knows why they like it.

I can.

I first read the books when I was about 14, and since then they have been the cornerstone of my literary canon. The themes and issues touched upon by Tolkien are universal and have inspired readers for generations to consider the battle between good and evil, the struggle against moral corruption and the inheritance of duty and responsibility.

When I heard that the films were in production I was at first worried that they would be a detriment to the legacy of the books. But after sitting through The Fellowship of the Ring I was proved wonderfully wrong on that point and I don't mind admitting that by the end of the film I was in tears at the sight of my mist beloved piece of literature brought to life.

The casting is a perfect mix of known faces and new talent. The script is moving and faithful to the books. The SFX are groundbreaking and actually work with the film rather than overwhelming it. The costumes and sets are elaborate and fully realised.

The first film is a perfect example of setting the scene. The second is a tense and exciting action feature. The third is a mix of the other two and a majestic climax.

From my point of view there is nothing not to like here.

Some fair points, but you're talking about the books again.
I was talking about the film.

>>The casting is a perfect mix of known faces and new talent.
==All the evil people are ugly. All the nice people are good looking.

>>The script is moving and faithful to the books.
Making it faithful to the books, doesn't make it a good movie.

>>The SFX are groundbreaking and actually work with the film rather than overwhelming it.
==The SFX are nothing new. It's all been seen before.

>>The costumes and sets are elaborate and fully realised.
==Ah, come on!

>>The first film is a perfect example of setting the scene. The second is a tense and exciting action feature. The third is a mix of the other two and a majestic climax.
==Exactly, it takes them three hours to set the scene... that's just wrong. It shows a massive lack of understanding of the media they are using. Fine for a book, useless for a movie.
Three hours of an elf walking through a forrest, is not exciting. The battle scenes were unrealistic. The action was laughable not exciting.

You are Mr Controversial huh?!!

Im not gonna go off on one, but I really don't see why you think they are so bad. The negative for me was the fact that they were sooooo damn long, but I can see that needed to be the case.

You say that the FX has been seen before, well maybe to an extent but this must be one of the best ever examples of it in use.
I use the film forum on www.more2movies.com quite a bit & people there have mixed views on the film also, but the good far outweigh the bad. At the end of the day I'd say 95% of people who have watched the films love them (& why do they top pretty much every film critic/magazine poll going?).

But yknow, everyone is rightly enntitled to their opinion & I think Rarstar you are the leader of that 5% of people.

ps. I bet you loved Gigli huh?! Only kidding :0)

I just think it's hype gone mad.

I wasn't picking out bad points just asking if anyone can point out a good one.

The films are too long and PJs camerawork is too jumpy. Not enough long shots and wide shots to enjoy the fights. I read the books as a child and am rereading now I liked them. Visually the films are the books come to life. The films should have been done as two films or three shorter ones. Too much time wasting on things that do not move the story on. The story should be moving on all the time not standing still on waiting about scenes.

The films also lost out on the order of incidents in the books being altered roung. The second film did not have enough in it to sustain the length. Sorry, I know fans will roast me but tough. Get over it. Books are one thing but films are another medium altogether with their own rules.

Originally posted by rarstar
Jaws
The Sixth Sense
The Others
Signs
Old School
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Fight Club


I knew no-one would be able to tell me why everyone is obsessed with Lord Of The Rings.
No-one even knows why they like it.

I wouldn't say I'm obsessed but I thoroughly enjoyed all three films. Good plot, good characters, fantastic scenery, brilliant cgi, good editing, memorable performances, plus many more reasons.

Could I ask your reasons for enjoying each of the films above?

They call the series (and / or Tolkiens geekish creation of worlds / languages etc) an EPIC story.

This is probably the key to its general popularity - story lines of friendship, love, good vs evil, fighting for what you believe in etcetc are all covered. You know why pop-music is called 'pop' coz it's POPULAR, and its often popular because it has a common theme or feel.

I read The Hobbit and LoTR years ago, and lots of people read it as teenagers. I can't say it's my favourite sci-fi, but then I can't remember it very well either (Having read the books did not ruin my film viewing -for once!). I much prefer Terry Pratchett (prehaps coz its more modern).

I have to complain about length, even ignoring the fact that i'm a smoker and nicotine levels were running low. I really do struggle to sit still for THAT long withought a break. Much easier to watch on DVD at home later, so you can have a few mins break at some point. And probably the fact that I've now watched all 3 within 2 weeks (aaargh!).

Next task is 2cnd half of Gormenghast -which I managed to pick up on video (unfortunately not DVD - for only £4.99 in the sale).

But I enjoyed it - and am now gonna read it all again from The Hobbit onwards. (but non of the geeky extras - tried once before and nearly died of boredom).


:(

Yeah, there is some good stuff in there, I just think the films were poorly made.
Would have preferred to see one three-hour film or two two-hour films. Nine hours is way too much, and frankly most of it is padding.

I'm not going to go into too much detail, because I think plenty has been written about these films, and I think you're trying to catch me out...

JAWS :- Quality film making. Basic story, but the film is timeless. A good example of how the media can be used to conjure up feelings and moods in the audience.

THE SIXTH SENSE :- It was the first of it's kind. It's not only an interesting story, but you don't know what the story is, and the relevance of each part until the whole film comes together in the final scene.

THE OTHERS :- It's difficult to make a film these days which is genuinely quite chilling. The first and only time I've seen a film make a hundred people in a cinema all jump at the same time (people were genuinely scared).

SIGNS :- Shyamalan is a genius. Everytime I watch it, I find something I missed. It's a very interesting study of religion and how peoples beliefs affect their personality and actions.

OLD SCHOOL :- It's funny! What's wrong with that?

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY :- It captures the time the characters and the setting very well. Films/Music and other types of art are also escapism and this film transports you right into the middle of the story. It tells the story very well and is an excellent translation between two types of media.

FIGHT CLUB :- I like films that make you think. It's a very clever story.

I don't think max would have been trying to catch you out.
Just interested I suppose as to why those particular films made your tops list, when a million others didn't.
I don't think I could come up with such a short list... coz so many different reasons for enjoying films.
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by hiyabeing
I don't think max would have been trying to catch you out.
Just interested I suppose as to why those particular films made your tops list, when a million others didn't.
I don't think I could come up with such a short list... coz so many different reasons for enjoying films.
:thumbsup:

Thanks. You're right, I am interested in people's choices for saying they prefer one film over another. For instance, my nephew did film studies at school and so he can enjoy a particular film because of the echoes of other people's work in it.

I enjoy watching The Good, The Bad & The Ugly because I remember it first coming out and it takes me back to the days of my youf. Other films I enjoy for other reasons and I would never denigrate another's choices.

OK then, it was just funny the way you put it, and I did miss a ;) off myself.

I find it hard to dislike anything to be honest. I normally find something I like about most films and music.

Originally posted by rarstar
Yeah, there is some good stuff in there, I just think the films were poorly made.
Would have preferred to see one three-hour film or two two-hour films. Nine hours is way too much, and frankly most of it is padding.

Well if you can think of a better director to do the job, then perhaps you should suggest them!

Film makers, producers etc..

Have you ever watched the extras to see what poor and lazy efforts were put in to making the films, giving the viewer such a dismal, shallow white-wash of a filmic experience?

Personally I love them.

Max and hiyabeing I have to go with on this one...

What does make me laff is just because someone can see flaws in an a person, object or thing, they assume that they know better and could do better.

This was such an ambitious project.

There are a hundred books about `wars in the stars` and adventure heros looking for the ark, etc......

who has never heard of `Lord of the Rings`

`Action scenes were so funny, did i miss something?`

If Peter Jackson were to do it again I am sure he would change many things...

rarstar, are you a media student on a victorious roll to graduating by the way?

Carrying a pocket of ego and a bag of ambition?

No offence just asking....

Originally posted by rarstar
Some fair points, but you're talking about the books again.
I was talking about the film.

>>The casting is a perfect mix of known faces and new talent.
==All the evil people are ugly. All the nice people are good looking.

>>The script is moving and faithful to the books.
Making it faithful to the books, doesn't make it a good movie.

>>The SFX are groundbreaking and actually work with the film rather than overwhelming it.
==The SFX are nothing new. It's all been seen before.

>>The costumes and sets are elaborate and fully realised.
==Ah, come on!

>>The first film is a perfect example of setting the scene. The second is a tense and exciting action feature. The third is a mix of the other two and a majestic climax.
==Exactly, it takes them three hours to set the scene... that's just wrong. It shows a massive lack of understanding of the media they are using. Fine for a book, useless for a movie.
Three hours of an elf walking through a forrest, is not exciting. The battle scenes were unrealistic. The action was laughable not exciting.

Your point about evil being ugly and the nice being good looking....your point is?? Please explain how this makes it a bad film? I think you'll find that there are many films that use this angle, are they all bad films too? Anyway as for the nice being good looking, can't say I particularly found Frodo or Gandolf goodlooking if you mean in a fanciable way. Can't say I find Christopher Lee Ugly. Does Gollum count, he is bad, made evil by the ring, he is not human so I neither think of him as ugly or good looking. I think you must be referring to Aragon and Legolas maybe? Yes they are good looking, but I seem to recall most films that I've seen have a goodlooking nice person. I really don't understand your point.

Making it faithful to the book should make it a good movie. Whether you've read the books or not, it is a fact that a huge amount of people have read the books at some point in their life and loved the story. Therefore, the logical thing to do would be to keep close to the story that people so loved. Hence people who haven't read the book, can enjoy the story for what it is. What is your point here? I personally thought the film captured the essence of the books and since the books are excellent, then the films were too. The scenery, the acting, the production, the costumes, the attention to detail, the music, the grand scale of the whole thing was spot on. Whether you've read the books or not, how could you fail to appreciate this piece of art.

The SFX, may have been done before, but perhaps not to the extent of Gollum. Oh my God, how excellent Gollum was and realistic. I watched the documentaries on the DVD extras on how they did it and that team deserve some recognition plus Andy Serks who plays him. Rarstar...are you sure you were watching the same films? Ok...if you prefer a fake looking shark in Jaws, or a floating arm in the sea with a bit of blood then that's your opinion I guess.

The costumes and sets were amazing. Do you know how long it took them to make the chain mail in the armour, and design all the different soldiers suits, the research that went into it. All the swords that were specially designed to be in keeping with Middle Earth. All the buildings on the hills, the sheer scale of the sets. I was gob smacked. It was fantastic, and set your imagination on fire. Spot on. I could go on and on and on about how amazing the films were.

Ok, I read the books as a kid, but I don't think that matters. The films were a true masterpiece. They evoked emotion, and as people pointed out above, they are about so many things, war, honour, friendship, loyalty, people willing to fight and die for what they believe in, Evil, good, power etc etc I could go on.

Obviously not your thing. Shame you can't appreciate them, a real shame.

As for them being long and 3 hours to set a theme. This is required, if you've ever seen the short versions that have been made, they don't work. Too much is cut out and it doesn't let you get into the characters enough to understand why they do what they do and react as they do. Scene setting is fundamental to these films. Bring on the extended version of the return of the King!

>> Have you ever watched the extras to see what poor and lazy efforts were put in to making the films, giving the viewer such a dismal, shallow white-wash of a filmic experience?

How does the amount of effort make it a better film?
Do critics give rave reviews for a film because "they tried hard"?


>> What does make me laff is just because someone can see flaws in an a person, object or thing, they assume that they know better and could do better.

Who said that?


>> This was such an ambitious project.

And?


>> There are a hundred books about `wars in the stars` and adventure heros looking for the ark, etc......
who has never heard of `Lord of the Rings`

Honestly, you've lost me there.


>>`Action scenes were so funny, did i miss something?`

I just watched a bloke climb up a walking elephant (or whatever it was). That made me laugh.


>> If Peter Jackson were to do it again I am sure he would change many things...

Exactly!


>> rarstar, are you a media student on a victorious roll to graduating by the way?
Carrying a pocket of ego and a bag of ambition?
No offence just asking....

No. Are you?

>> Your point about evil being ugly and the nice being good looking....your point is?? Please explain how this makes it a bad film? I think you'll find that there are many films that use this angle, are they all bad films too? Anyway as for the nice being good looking, can't say I particularly found Frodo or Gandolf goodlooking if you mean in a fanciable way. Can't say I find Christopher Lee Ugly. Does Gollum count, he is bad, made evil by the ring, he is not human so I neither think of him as ugly or good looking. I think you must be referring to Aragon and Legolas maybe? Yes they are good looking, but I seem to recall most films that I've seen have a goodlooking nice person. I really don't understand your point.

It's all just about stereotypes and cliche's. I don't find that ground-breaking to be honest.
Let me put it this way...
If you think about art... it's easy to draw a person and make it look visually exactly like that person. But it's much harder to draw them and it visually doesn't look anything like that person. But it's still them.
That's my point.


>> Making it faithful to the book should make it a good movie. Whether you've read the books or not, it is a fact that a huge amount of people have read the books at some point in their life and loved the story. Therefore, the logical thing to do would be to keep close to the story that people so loved. Hence people who haven't read the book, can enjoy the story for what it is. What is your point here? I personally thought the film captured the essence of the books and since the books are excellent, then the films were too. The scenery, the acting, the production, the costumes, the attention to detail, the music, the grand scale of the whole thing was spot on. Whether you've read the books or not, how could you fail to appreciate this piece of art.

Books are not films and films are not books.
Poor books can be turned into good films.
And good books can be turned into poor films.
Making it faithful to the book doesn't necessarily make it a good film.


>> The SFX, may have been done before, but perhaps not to the extent of Gollum. Oh my God, how excellent Gollum was and realistic. I watched the documentaries on the DVD extras on how they did it and that team deserve some recognition plus Andy Serks who plays him. Rarstar...are you sure you were watching the same films? Ok...if you prefer a fake looking shark in Jaws, or a floating arm in the sea with a bit of blood then that's your opinion I guess.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
If you read what I posted you will have noticed that I didn't list Jaws for it's special effects.
The effects in Lord of the Rings are nothing new, it's not an oppinion, it's a fact. You are stating quite confidently that they are cutting edge. If you want to see cutting edge CGI then look at what Pixar studios are doing.


>> The costumes and sets were amazing. Do you know how long it took them to make the chain mail in the armour, and design all the different soldiers suits, the research that went into it. All the swords that were specially designed to be in keeping with Middle Earth. All the buildings on the hills, the sheer scale of the sets. I was gob smacked. It was fantastic, and set your imagination on fire. Spot on. I could go on and on and on about how amazing the films were.

Yes the costumes and sets were good. I didn't need to have them in front of me for nine hours to appreciate that though.


>> Ok, I read the books as a kid, but I don't think that matters. The films were a true masterpiece. They evoked emotion, and as people pointed out above, they are about so many things, war, honour, friendship, loyalty, people willing to fight and die for what they believe in, Evil, good, power etc etc I could go on.
Obviously not your thing. Shame you can't appreciate them, a real shame.

See, you're missing the whole point.
I can and do appreciate those things. I just don't think it's a good film. Can't you understand that?


>> As for them being long and 3 hours to set a theme. This is required, if you've ever seen the short versions that have been made, they don't work. Too much is cut out and it doesn't let you get into the characters enough to understand why they do what they do and react as they do. Scene setting is fundamental to these films. Bring on the extended version of the return of the King!

If I see one more close-up of Frodo's face with that forlorn look on his face, I'll probably be physically sick.

Bloody hell!

It's amazing how people have to make things so personal when they are defending something like this!

I won't take it to heart though, as I just did the exact same thing as you lot on the sports forum!

;)

Don't worry I'm not taking it personally, it's your opinion. Just as you can't see it's a good film (in my opinion), I can't see how you think it isn't a good film!!

Each to their own. I'm sure I've disliked films before when others have raved on about them.

I only feel strongly about LOTR because as something you've grown up with, when it has come to the big screen and you are pleased with the result, then you're gonna love it. It could have gone horribly wrong. Back to the whole book thing, there were some changes and interpretations made in order to make this a film. Of course you have to change things to change the media from book to film. As you said Books are not films and films are not books. However, LOTR is a great story and deserves the big screen as a way to tell it. I actually think that Peter Jackson made some brilliant decisions to make this work better as a film. Changing the whole layout of the second book was one of them. I think the films work well and most of the changes made were for the best and haven't destroyed a JRT masterpiece, they can now be enjoyed by all those who can't be bothered to read!!

I can understand both sides of the argument about LOTR. I read the books as a child and am re-reading now. The thing that has spoilt the experience of watching the films is the plot line being moved about.
The first film was good I came out thinking the book had come to life for me visually. The second film was beautiful to look at but too long and there was not enough plot content because alot had been put in the first film and they were saving alot for ROTK. I agree with Rarstar that they could have been done as two films.

Fans are too fanatical and not objective enough. I like to get totally lost in a film and I did not in the last one particularly. As for the end. I kept laughing. Coronation of Aragorn the end. No. Fade out go to next scene. The end. No fade out go to next scene. How many endings could there possibly be? Definitely too many. It should have been left on the high note of Aragorn acknowledging Frodo and Sam at the coronation scene. It was triumphal and he was reunited with his love.
People who criticise the film are not knocking the whole thing just PJs version of how to do some things. It was beautiful to look at but that is not enough.

>> What does make me laff is just because someone can see flaws in a person, object or thing, they assume that they know better and could do better.
Who said that?

You have clearly pointed out that you are unwilling to appreciate any aspect of this series, like it would kill you if you do not win this (cannot call dicussion) argument. If it were an objective discussion, you would be able to allow for positive aspects. but no all you can do is speak of hate.


>> This was such an ambitious project.

And?
You simply approached the films refusing to like any of them before watching them.

>>`Action scenes were so funny, did i miss something?`

I just watched a bloke climb up a walking elephant (or whatever it was). That made me laugh.
A Bloke or an elf? Orlaphont (check spelling)

>> If Peter Jackson were to do it again I am sure he would change many things...
Exactly!
The point i was making there is that an artists work is often unfinished, but at what point does he/she stop adding to it!

Clearly a subject you know nothing of demonstrated by your ridiculous comment made about portrait painting.

I conclude that your `creativity by-pass operation`must have been complete success. (sorry Phan, I had to)

Everyone can now getdown off their high horses.
What'sthe deal with analysing everthing anyway.
Watch a film (1st time at least) and just watch it for the story and the visuals (that u picl up on 1st time round, and jokes / gags) and ENJOY (or not - as the case may be).
Yeah I like Sci-Fi amd have read story before - but cant remember it well.
And Foxxx is sound, so don't start her him / her (yeah Foxx I do remember what sex you really are!:P ) - EACH TO THEIR OWN - thats what I say!!!!!!!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

>> What does make me laff is just because someone can see flaws in a person, object or thing, they assume that they know better and could do better.
Who said that?

>>You have clearly pointed out that you are unwilling to appreciate any aspect of this series, like it would kill you if you do not win this (cannot call dicussion) argument. If it were an objective discussion, you would be able to allow for positive aspects. but no all you can do is speak of hate.

==
I never said I could do a better job. What are you talking about?
I've already posted this once, but since you obviously haven't read my arguments before attacking them...

>> Ok, I read the books as a kid, but I don't think that matters. The films were a true masterpiece. They evoked emotion, and as people pointed out above, they are about so many things, war, honour, friendship, loyalty, people willing to fight and die for what they believe in, Evil, good, power etc etc I could go on.
Obviously not your thing. Shame you can't appreciate them, a real shame.

See, you're missing the whole point.
I can and do appreciate those things. I just don't think it's a good film. Can't you understand that?




>> like it would kill you if you do not win this

==
I think you'll find that's exactly how you are behaving.




>> This was such an ambitious project.

And?
You simply approached the films refusing to like any of them before watching them.

==
That's not true. I was dead excited about seeing the first one. Thought it might be something interesting and different.
I queued up early at the Odeon on the day it was released.
Just didn't like it.




>>`Action scenes were so funny, did i miss something?`

I just watched a bloke climb up a walking elephant (or whatever it was). That made me laugh.
A Bloke or an elf? Orlaphont (check spelling)

===
Are you trying to make a point, or just being childish?




>> If Peter Jackson were to do it again I am sure he would change many things...
Exactly!
The point i was making there is that an artists work is often unfinished, but at what point does he/she stop adding to it!

Clearly a subject you know nothing of demonstrated by your ridiculous comment made about portrait painting.

I conclude that your `creativity by-pass operation`must have been complete success. (sorry Phan, I had to)


==
I don't see what this has to do with the original discussion about whether the film was any good but...

That comment was made about the LACK of creativity in the film.
It was preceded by
"It's all just about stereotypes and cliche's. I don't find that ground-breaking to be honest."

Think of Crouching Tiger.
People can't run up walls and jump over buildings in real life. But the artist used this to indicate and describe feeling and emotion.

In Lord of the Rings, the director uses the obvious. Bad people are Ugly. Wizards have beards. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with that, I just said it wasn't GROUND BREAKING.

By the way, just because you don't understand a comment I've made, it doesn't make it rediculous.

To be honest I don't care if you like the films or not, that's up to you and I'm not arguing, but I don't think you can judge whether they are good or not. It's all down to opinion. Same as the Oscars are. You keep asking what makes the films good and we tell you...well you've not really explained what makes the films bad apart from a couple of lame reasons e.g. too long, stereotyping with bad being ugly and wizards having beards, the special effects not being ground breaking etc. You have gone on about the films in general not being ground breaking. LOTR wasn't claiming to be ground breaking, it was claiming to be bringing 3 fantastic books to life and I think it did just that. Peter Jackson has made his interpretation of the books. The wizards have beards in the book and the bad are ugly. How does that make the films bad? Please can you elaborate? Or are you basically saying that the books are stereotypical and you don't like the story? As a piece of film making, I can't see anything wrong with it. I am a bit confused. Is there a way that you think PJ could have made the films good? What should he have done?You're input would be appreciated rarstar. Was it the direction, the acting, the casting that are bad? Should he have made the elfs be able to fly and have blank rectangular ears to represent something, or Gandolf be able to do read people's minds while walking backwards and make him look Jamacian? Sorry if this sounds sarcastic but I'm not sure how you can compare crouching Tiger to LOTR. Crouching Tiger is fantastic and yes it has people running up walls etc which is all very arty farty but since when has LOTR been trying to achieve that effect?. LOTR is what is is, a book made into a film. Please explain how this film could have been good.

I like a good discussion.

The films just play up to what everyone knows, likes and feels comfortable with.

For a story like this, set in a completely fictional world, the opportunity for Artistic license is endless. The director can more or less take it where-ever he likes. But he doesn't. They just release nine hours of contrived drivel.

This could have been the best film ever, but in my view, they took the easy (and most financially rewarding) option.

Besides, this was never about why it was a bad film. I simply asked "Why the fuss".

I understand people are interested in seeing the book brought to life in all it's grandeur. But that doesn't account for all the hype surrounding the three films. It's almost as if modern society needs to be told what to eat, wear, watch, etc. Lord of The Rings is probably the highest grossing film ever (I don't know - haven't checked figures). But the fact is it's not a great film.

Originally posted by rarstar
But the fact is it's not a great film.

I remember when Jaws and The Good The Bad and The Ugly were released they had many critics who damned them in much the same way that you are damning the LOTR trilogy. They were condemned as escapism, cheaply made, poorly scripted and matinee fodder. However, as you rightly point out in an earlier post, they became good, if not great, films after the passage of time.

When the original spaghetti westerns were made they were not made for any other reason than to make money. Maybe PJ did set out to make money but he has enthralled audiences the world over not because they are slaves to modern culture but rather because the films were eagerly awaited by the millions of people who had read the books, went to see the films and said 'ahhhh, thank you, that's spot on'.

Originally posted by rarstar
In Lord of the Rings, the director uses the obvious. Bad people are Ugly. Wizards have beards. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with that, I just said it wasn't GROUND BREAKING.

Erm... the Istari do have beards, and somehow, I don't think attractive Orcs, Trolls, and Uruk-Hai, however ground breaking a concept it may be, would have worked too well in this particular film. I think there are certain limits to the grounds one can break when adapting a literary masterpiece to the silver screen, and to be honest, I don't think that it required any ground breaking input - the original material was good enough.

I have to say that, being a huge fan of Tolkien's world, I was disappointed by some of the plot changes, and Peter Jackson's misunderstanding/misinterpretation of some parts of the book (what was the huge floating Eye above Barad Dur all about?!? Also, the complete change in Faramir's personality), but regardless, the films were pretty amazing, and on the whole, I'm very impressed. The only thing I really don't like about them (and it's not a major issue), is that they're too short - so much of the tale has been omitted.

Slightly off topic - have you ever watched David Lynch's Eraserhead, or more recently, Mulholland Drive? If you enjoy films that challenge you, or make you think, rarstar, I recommend these.

D'you know what really annoyed me?
In the city made of rock - carved into the rockface, there's one of the wizards eating tomatoes!!!
:)


I haven't seen those films, but I'll look out for them, cheers.

It's down to publicity and our 'flocking' sheep like human natures ...

"well ... everyone else is seeing it so it must be good"

Mind you ... I loved all 3 !!! *baaaa*

Originally posted by rarstar
D'you know what really annoyed me?
In the city made of rock - carved into the rockface, there's one of the wizards eating tomatoes!!!
:)

You've actually got a valid point there, with the tomato (OK, I'm going to be a real Tolkien geek now, sorry!). Tolkien wanted Middle Earth to resemble historical Europe as much as possible - even down to the flora and fauna (within reason, of course). The time scale within which the story is set predates the first time that tomatoes were first imported into/eaten in England, and as such, the characters should have never even heard of them, let alone be eating them.

Originally posted by rarstar
OK, I've seen all three now, and they seem to me like three of the worst films I've ever seen.
Can someone tell me why they are so popular?

Ok taste accouts for alot here but the worst films you have ever seen?

Next you will be saying that Oasis are the best band in the world!

Ok taste accouts for alot here but the worst films you have ever seen? Next you will be saying that Oasis are the best band in the world!

Very clever!

I think if we can all accept the fact that opinions are like ares-holes (in that we all have one, are fascinated by our own, but couldn't care less about anyone else's) then the argument over whether or not the Peter Jackson LOTR movies are good, bad or indifferent is besides the point.

To say that these are "not great films" is very subjective and seems a little daft when you are also picking out a list of films that you believe are great because of the memories they evoke and the qualities that you see in them as an individual.

When I was a kid my Dad bought a copy of "Assault on Precint 13" because he thought it was a enjoyable film. At the time everyone else hated it, but now it pops up in the lists of must-see films compiled by trendy critics. Was my Dad a visionary (scary thought)? Did the critics have an epiphany?

No, they like it now and he liked it then...but some folks still can't stand the film. It doesn't make the film great or poor, just proves that perception is the key.

What you need to state is that the films are not great in your opinion.

By the way, the wizards always had beards and the Orcs and Trolls are foul degenerate beings bred by a wholly evil demonic power, so portraying them as such might not be such a bad idea.

Wow, I got arse-holes through the moderating by spelling it incorrectly...the possibilities that conjures up...

No, it gets through spelt correctly as well...I wonder:

arse

Now let's see if that does as well.

It does...I wonder what other rude words slipped through?

>> To say that these are "not great films" is very subjective and seems a little daft

== Why, everyone's going mental about them! Haven't you noticed? They're the three highest grossing films in history. To ask what all the fuss is about isn't "daft" at all!



>> when you are also picking out a list of films

== I'm not, I was asked, that's completely irrelevant.



>> that you believe are great because of the memories they evoke

== I never mentioned anything about memories, you're making this up.



>> and the qualities that you see in them as an individual.

== No, qualities which exist, and are a just reason for the films success.



>> What you need to state is that the films are not great in your opinion.

== No I don't. It's got nothing to do with my opinion. Even if I had enjoyed them I would still be able to see they aren't masterpieces on par with Beethoven or Shakespear like everyone seems to make out.

There are plenty of films which I enjoy (and most other's don't!) which I can happily state are poor films.
'Children of the Living Dead' - bog standard zombie film, for example, I can happily sit and watch, but that's down to my personal tastes. I know it's not as good a film as say 'Titanic' (the recent one) - which I can't stand to watch but can still appreciate is a quaity piece of cinema.



>> By the way, the wizards always had beards and the Orcs and Trolls are foul degenerate beings bred by a wholly evil demonic power, so portraying them as such might not be such a bad idea.

== Didn't "get" that did you?

I'm just not getting how stating that these are not great films is not a matter of your own opinion.

You seem to be confusing the fact that the films have recived a lot of hype with the actual experience that movie-goers have come away with after watching them.

Titanic go all the attention in the world, grossed massively and won oscars, but when I saw it I all I experinced was a poor attempt at film-making.

Aside from the hype that surrounded the LOTR films, I went along and saw them and liked them...why does that mean that I'm giving in to the hype? I just liked the films for my own reasons.

As a thinking individual there is an equal chance that I could have hated the films. I love the Vampire Chronicles, but I still thought that Queen of the Damned stank.

Just because a movie gets hype, grosses huge and you didn't like the thing doesn't mean everyone else in the cinema has been duped by the nefarious Peter Jackson...does it?

Rarstar,

I apologise if I misquoted you on the memories and your fav movies, this thread is long and the thing gets confusing.

But I did "get" your point about the wizards with beards and bad people are ugly aspect of the film. Taken at face value they are stereotypical, but then neither Tokien and more importantly Peter Jackson have ever ones to go in for anything ground-breaking and genre-defying. A handsome villian and an ugly hero wouldn't really make sense in a setting where things are black and white like this one.

Even as a fan I can see that these films are fantastical, full of cliques and subtle as a charging elephant...but it was a fun ride along the way!

I know it wouldn't make sense, I was just trying to put accross the point that for all the attention this film recieves, and the way people talk about it, it really isn't that ground-breaking.

I understand it means something to people who have grown up with the books, but apart from that, the film isn't that special.

In your opinion!

Don't read below if you haven't seen final movie

....

....

read warning above :P

...

Just seen the last one. In general I thought the whole film (i.e. the 3 parts) was 'ok' but nothing more really. The SFX were amazing on the large battle scenes, but certain parts of the movie were so dragged out. How many times do we get that below-and-up angle of Elijah Wood looking all "thoughtful"!

Also the ending of the last movie was frankly awful! There were about 4 different places where it could have ended - by the end I was feeling sick with all the soft lighting. It's a happy ending - we get the idea - no need to over egg it!

PS. Anyone else think those elves were a little too friendly with each other? Or did Tolkein intend them to be gay? ;)

PPS. For those of you who really like to find mistakes:
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film2746

In your opinion!

No! It's a hard shiny fact.

Tehnically, they are poor to average films.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, so lets keep this thread to discussing the film itself, rather than its fans or critics ;)