rewatching Lord of the Rings

payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
I feel the same for the most part. I saw the LotR in the theaters when they out, I liked them well enough but they got worse as they went on. I own the DVDs and watched them when I bought them, but they just collect dust nowadays, and I can't imagine a time where I'd want to spend 9-10 hours rewatching them. The Hobbit movies sucked, and I think I only saw the first one, and walked out of the second one after less than an hour. If they're on cable I skip right by all six of them every time. Agreed, the books were hard to get through at times.
Oh man, the Hobbit was a joke. I remember hearing about the name "unexpected Journey" and told my friends just wait this will be the "totally expected trilogy" and sure enough they announced multiple films.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

R_J_K75

Legend
Oh man, the Hobbit was a joke. I remember hearing about the name "unexpected Journey" and told my friends just wait this will be the "totally expected trilogy" and sure enough they announced multiple films.
Seemed like Peter Jackson made them remotely from his home office in a bath robe and slippers. Guillermo del Toro was originally supposed to direct and iirc it was only supposed to be two movies, so I wonder how that would've turned out.
 

nevin

Hero
Seemed like Peter Jackson made them remotely from his home office in a bath robe and slippers. Guillermo del Toro was originally supposed to direct and iirc it was only supposed to be two movies, so I wonder how that would've turned out.
While planning the next theme park ride with paramount.....
 

Dausuul

Legend
Seemed like Peter Jackson made them remotely from his home office in a bath robe and slippers. Guillermo del Toro was originally supposed to direct and iirc it was only supposed to be two movies, so I wonder how that would've turned out.
If "The Hobbit" had been one movie, it would have been fine. Most of the problems with that trilogy stem from the decision to make it a trilogy, which necessitated adding an enormous amount of material to the original.

It's a damn shame, because there were some really amazing performances. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman* as Smaug and Bilbo were... chef's kiss But there was just so much filler.

*Edited to correct my mix-up of Bilbo actors. Martin Freeman played Bilbo in the Hobbit movies. Ian Holm was in LotR.
 

nevin

Hero
If "The Hobbit" had been one movie, it would have been fine. Most of the problems with that trilogy stem from the decision to make it a trilogy, which necessitated adding an enormous amount of material to the original.

It's a damn shame, because there were some really amazing performances. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Smaug and Bilbo were... chef's kiss But there was just so much filler.
No I'm going to disagree. I remember complaining to my wife during the first watch of the lord of the rings that Jackson must hate dwarves because Gimli struggled to kill anything and Legolas was murderhoboing everything. (completely against the spirit of the book where Gimli and Legolas kept right up with each other to the end). Then we got fat stupid, funny dwarves in the hobbit. I think jackson would have screwed it up even with one movie. He obviously hates dwarves and likes to use them as incompetent straw funny men who are pointless. Moose cavalry jumping over best shield wall ever? Just not possible for that man to make a movie about dwarves and not screw it up.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
But there was just so much filler.
It had been a long time since I read the book and there was a lot of things, I didn't remember so it may have been written soley for the movies. I could be wrong. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it incorporated parts of the Silmarillion in it too for some of the filler, but I could be mistaken? Speaking of a book that was hard to get through, after 4 pages I said screw this and never looked back or regretted that decision.
 

nevin

Hero
It had been a long time since I read the book and there was a lot of things, I didn't remember so it may have been written soley for the movies. I could be wrong. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it incorporated parts of the Silmarillion in it too for some of the filler, but I could be mistaken? Speaking of a book that was hard to get through, after 4 pages I said screw this and never looked back or regretted that decision.
He meant filler on the Hobbit which didn't need filler till they decided to make a normal book into two seperate movies. Now if you are talking about the "Rings of Power" very valid observation
 

nevin

Hero
I cant think of any silmarillion that was used as filler for the hobbit. The love story was ok, but the dumb dragon fight in the dwarven caverns with a creature that was bred from other dragons that were used to kill Maier was so stupid it killed the movie for a lot of fans. Even Balrogs were afraid of dragons.
 

The Hobbit movies sucked, and...

I totally understand the desire to move on to talking about these and why they are a let-down* when discussing the LotR trilogy, but honestly do we have to?
*same with Rings of Power

Look, I get it. We all get it (and pretty much everyone will have the same opinions): poorly thought-out cash-grab prequel series -- based on entirely too little actual written work to support the runtime; overusing digital effects; using actors with less chemistry that the original; all the time spending too much time making references to the other, beloved, works -- does not actually make a good movie (and that before the delays and production issues and changes in directors). We all get it, we all agree.

Mind you, finding something upon which we all agree (instead of our usual eternal pointless arguing) is generally a positive thing for this board. Thing is, the thread topic was about the LotR trilogy, not these. Yet people are already diverting to posts strictly about the Hobbit movies that don't mention the LotR movies at all. I feel like we never again get to have a full real conversation about LotR, the original Star Wars trilogy, or Indiana Jones I-III without it becoming a dogpile of relatively homogenous dislike of later works*.
*For whatever reason we can discuss the early good Alien, Terminator, Rambo, Rocky, and Godfather films with only tangential discussion of the lessor sequels.

Again, not disagreeing with anyone. Nor telling people what to do (merely advocating a course of action). Just bemoaning that we can't have nice things (a discussion about three influential movies).
 

nevin

Hero
I totally understand the desire to move on to talking about these and why they are a let-down* when discussing the LotR trilogy, but honestly do we have to?
*same with Rings of Power

Look, I get it. We all get it (and pretty much everyone will have the same opinions): poorly thought-out cash-grab prequel series -- based on entirely too little actual written work to support the runtime; overusing digital effects; using actors with less chemistry that the original; all the time spending too much time making references to the other, beloved, works -- does not actually make a good movie (and that before the delays and production issues and changes in directors). We all get it, we all agree.

Mind you, finding something upon which we all agree (instead of our usual eternal pointless arguing) is generally a positive thing for this board. Thing is, the thread topic was about the LotR trilogy, not these. Yet people are already diverting to posts strictly about the Hobbit movies that don't mention the LotR movies at all. I feel like we never again get to have a full real conversation about LotR, the original Star Wars trilogy, or Indiana Jones I-III without it becoming a dogpile of relatively homogenous dislike of later works*.
*For whatever reason we can discuss the early good Alien, Terminator, Rambo, Rocky, and Godfather films with only tangential discussion of the lessor sequels.

Again, not disagreeing with anyone. Nor telling people what to do (merely advocating a course of action). Just bemoaning that we can't have nice things (a discussion W
Since the Hobbit is the prequel and the same director who did such a stunning job with the first three made those mediocre movies I think you are being a bit sensitive about it. It's all the same story. Thus the unhappy fans at what Jackson who did something no one thought anyone would ever do with the LOTR, turning the hobbit into theme park ride.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top