LOTR = The most overrated movie ever.

[Supersonic]

Aloha !

And this is why :

Lord Of The Rings sucks. I thought I missed the magic, but after watching Star Wars and feeling the Force again I knew LOTR is one of the most overrated movies ever. Probably a few people will say Star Wars can't be compared to LOTR, and I'll have to agree with them, as Star Wars is much better.

After sitting through the excruciatingly frivolously hours each time I watched a new part of the trilogy with the so called fantasy epic by lackey director Peter Jackson, not only was my butt and my patience numb, but The Lord of the Rings made me realize how much I truly appreciate George Lucas’s fantasy world and even Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

To start off, the main character, Frodo, played by a sedated Elijah Wood, has no personality. He’s a hobbit and the only one who can touch the main ring and not be seduced by the dark forces. But he’s not really defined as a character, no background story. Instead of giving it some magic it's the problem with the story itself. Frodo and his fellowship, or guardians, go on a journey to destroy this ring and keep running into new characters, who just kind of show up, bad and good, and aren’t distinguishable from one another. It just seems like they were probably in the book, so Jackson just threw them in the film, much like Harry Potter, to please the fans.

It’s because of this that I couldn’t identify with any of the characters, especially the evil ones. Saruman, played by Christopher Lee looking even more old than Ian McKellen as Gandalf, is apparently the leader of the bad guys, but his presence is barely felt. New goblins and demons keep on popping up out of nowhere to take on Frodo and his gang while there’s no clear presence or understanding of what exactly it is they're fighting. Yeh we know they're all going for the ring, but from the enemy's it isn't exactly made clear why each enemy wants it.

George Lucas and Star Wars in general has been criticized for poor direction, stiff acting, and bad dialogue. But Lucas understands story, structure, and length of his fantasy films. He doesn’t make three-hour epics with no ending. Sure, Darth Vader gets away at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, but the good guys had a clear objective, blow up the Death Star, and they completed it. Lucas didn’t leave us with a cliffhanger until The Empire Strikes Back when we already knew and were familiar with the characters. And even then it was a complete film; Luke faced Vader and the Empire won overall.

The first part isn't a good film,we’re just left with a cliffhanger for no good reason. Jackson clearly does not understand the structure an epic like this should take.

Jackson also shows his inexperience as a director too. The visual style he's used in the past doesn’t work for a film like this and the special effects, in most parts, are campy like the recent Mummy series. He uses too many close ups, and most of the time while in close up, the backgrounds look extremely fake, like a painted cardboard. The main star, Elijah Wood shows little or no emotion at all. Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Viggo Mortensen, and Sean Bean act the same as well. So to use close ups so often is not too intelligent.

The only two actors that really stand out are Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellen as Gandalf. The only problem with Gandalf is when he saves himself with a special effect that looks like something out of The Thunderbirds.

To top it off, one of the aspects that drives films like Star Wars and even Indiana Jones and makes them epic in stature are their exciting memorable classical scores by John Williams. The Rings score doesn’t drive the action scenes, nor is it memorable or exciting. Just plain boring. I went to the kitchen for some chips and a coke while the entire fighting scene with the Orks was going on. When I came back it was still going on and nothing had changed. I went to pee as well, and when I came back still the same boring fightscene was going on.

The action scenes are lame as well. Since there’s no distinct bad guy, it’s just a bunch of people fighting and killing each other, no climax, and no real excitement. When one fight scene was over they just moved onto the next, up until of course the film just ended.

Boring boring boring. It's overrated and if it wasn't for the book it wouldn't have been such a succes. Ah yeh this became a long story but I'm sick at home and was bored this time.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

[Thomas Anderson]

I recommend you read Lord Of The Rings. I haven't read Return Of The King yet, but will soon...I like the movies, but the books are better, with more character development and a lot of parts which weren't included in the movies.

[XRds1Bnce16]

Aloha !

And this is why :

Lord Of The Rings sucks. I thought I missed the magic, but after watching Star Wars and feeling the Force again I knew LOTR is one of the most overrated movies ever. Probably a few people will say Star Wars can't be compared to LOTR, and I'll have to agree with them, as Star Wars is much better.

After sitting through the excruciatingly frivolously hours each time I watched a new part of the trilogy with the so called fantasy epic by lackey director Peter Jackson, not only was my butt and my patience numb, but The Lord of the Rings made me realize how much I truly appreciate George Lucas’s fantasy world and even Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

To start off, the main character, Frodo, played by a sedated Elijah Wood, has no personality. He’s a hobbit and the only one who can touch the main ring and not be seduced by the dark forces. But he’s not really defined as a character, no background story. Instead of giving it some magic it's the problem with the story itself. Frodo and his fellowship, or guardians, go on a journey to destroy this ring and keep running into new characters, who just kind of show up, bad and good, and aren’t distinguishable from one another. It just seems like they were probably in the book, so Jackson just threw them in the film, much like Harry Potter, to please the fans.

It’s because of this that I couldn’t identify with any of the characters, especially the evil ones. Saruman, played by Christopher Lee looking even more old than Ian McKellen as Gandalf, is apparently the leader of the bad guys, but his presence is barely felt. New goblins and demons keep on popping up out of nowhere to take on Frodo and his gang while there’s no clear presence or understanding of what exactly it is they're fighting. Yeh we know they're all going for the ring, but from the enemy's it isn't exactly made clear why each enemy wants it.

George Lucas and Star Wars in general has been criticized for poor direction, stiff acting, and bad dialogue. But Lucas understands story, structure, and length of his fantasy films. He doesn’t make three-hour epics with no ending. Sure, Darth Vader gets away at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, but the good guys had a clear objective, blow up the Death Star, and they completed it. Lucas didn’t leave us with a cliffhanger until The Empire Strikes Back when we already knew and were familiar with the characters. And even then it was a complete film; Luke faced Vader and the Empire won overall.

The first part isn't a good film,we’re just left with a cliffhanger for no good reason. Jackson clearly does not understand the structure an epic like this should take.

Jackson also shows his inexperience as a director too. The visual style he's used in the past doesn’t work for a film like this and the special effects, in most parts, are campy like the recent Mummy series. He uses too many close ups, and most of the time while in close up, the backgrounds look extremely fake, like a painted cardboard. The main star, Elijah Wood shows little or no emotion at all. Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Viggo Mortensen, and Sean Bean act the same as well. So to use close ups so often is not too intelligent.

The only two actors that really stand out are Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellen as Gandalf. The only problem with Gandalf is when he saves himself with a special effect that looks like something out of The Thunderbirds.

To top it off, one of the aspects that drives films like Star Wars and even Indiana Jones and makes them epic in stature are their exciting memorable classical scores by John Williams. The Rings score doesn’t drive the action scenes, nor is it memorable or exciting. Just plain boring. I went to the kitchen for some chips and a coke while the entire fighting scene with the Orks was going on. When I came back it was still going on and nothing had changed. I went to pee as well, and when I came back still the same boring fightscene was going on.

The action scenes are lame as well. Since there’s no distinct bad guy, it’s just a bunch of people fighting and killing each other, no climax, and no real excitement. When one fight scene was over they just moved onto the next, up until of course the film just ended.

Boring boring boring. It's overrated and if it wasn't for the book it wouldn't have been such a succes. Ah yeh this became a long story but I'm sick at home and was bored this time.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

You took everything I've ever thought about Lord of the Rings and put it into words. Kudos to that, mate!

[*ºÇåptäîn¤Çrä§hº*]

Never seen more bullsh1t in one post.
If you don't like it, fine, but most things are just... ah well... dumb.

[axlash]

lord of the rings
harry potter
star wars
star track

they all suck......

[RyanBounce04]

lord of the rings
harry potter
star wars
star track

they all suck......

Star Trek you imbecile

Ryan

[SpainSambora]

Star Crap

[cih_hr]

I recommend you read Lord Of The Rings. I haven't read Return Of The King yet, but will soon...I like the movies, but the books are better, with more character development and a lot of parts which weren't included in the movies.

When you read a book, you file in tremendous amounts of detail all on your own, you smell the sap on the pines and you feel the cool air brushing against your face in that dark wood. You feel your heart beating faster and you know, in an undefinable way, thet SOMETHING is getting closer to you and it's hungry.
In a movie, there are exactly two things that are being feel to you: image and sound. The rest DISTRACTS from the experience - you don't smell that beast coming, you smell your date's cheap-ass perfume. You don't feel the wind on your face or the leaves against your back, you feel the sticky theater seat. And even the image is mixed with DISTRACTING images - the exit sign, the mole on the guy's neek in front of you, etc. You audio is mixed with the sound of people eating popcorn and the crinkle of bags and the snuffle of feet.
There is NO WAY a prose story can be adapted into a movie and guarantee the same or even comparable experience.

Nat

[*ºÇåptäîn¤Çrä§hº*]

When you read a book, you file in tremendous amounts of detail all on your own, you smell the sap on the pines and you feel the cool air brushing against your face in that dark wood. You feel your heart beating faster and you know, in an undefinable way, thet SOMETHING is getting closer to you and it's hungry.
In a movie, there are exactly two things that are being feel to you: image and sound. The rest DISTRACTS from the experience - you don't smell that beast coming, you smell your date's cheap-ass perfume. You don't feel the wind on your face or the leaves against your back, you feel the sticky theater seat. And even the image is mixed with DISTRACTING images - the exit sign, the mole on the guy's neek in front of you, etc. You audio is mixed with the sound of people eating popcorn and the crinkle of bags and the snuffle of feet.

You THINK you smell the sap, you THINK you feel the cool air... you don't really do so either. You haven't even image or sound in a book. It's about how good it is written that makes you THINK you have.
And even reading a book is mixed with distracting things, noise of your children running around, traffic noise on the street. It's all a matter of concentration.

There is NO WAY a prose story can be adapted into a movie and guarantee the same or even comparable experience.

That's true (though I think it can be comparable), but it's due to their different 'language', their different tempi and so on.

[Thomas Anderson]

In a movie, there are exactly two things that are being feel to you: image and sound. The rest DISTRACTS from the experience - you don't smell that beast coming, you smell your date's cheap-ass perfume. You don't feel the wind on your face or the leaves against your back, you feel the sticky theater seat. And even the image is mixed with DISTRACTING images - the exit sign, the mole on the guy's neek in front of you, etc. You audio is mixed with the sound of people eating popcorn and the crinkle of bags and the snuffle of feet.

You cinema sounds crap, lol

Ours is good, as the seats are reasonably comfotable, the screens are a decent size and the sound is so loud you can't hear anything else.
Personally I always make sure to go when it is going to be empty, which here is about 11am on a saturday morning, so that there are no distractions. Also our cinema has some cool effects to fit into movies; they turn the air conditioning and heating up and down according to whats happening onscreen, so you get a physical feeling of being there, at least moreso than if they didn't do it, lol

There is NO WAY a prose story can be adapted into a movie and guarantee the same or even comparable experience.

Of course that is true, everyone knows that, but its hardly the fault of the movie makers...they usually have about 2 or maybe 3 hours to tell this story, and if they tried to include EVERY single detail of the book the movie would probably end up at 4 hours or more.

Some movies do come very close to the book though, and sometimes (albeit rarely) are better. Fight Club is my favourite book, and the movie is one of my favourites too, because they really captured the essence of the book, with a mix of good acting and a good script.

I haven't read too many books before seeing the movie, as it is usually a movie that attracts me to a book, but I still think cinema is a great medium for telling stories if it is done well.

[*ºÇåptäîn¤Çrä§hº*]

Of course that is true, everyone knows that, but its hardly the fault of the movie makers...they usually have about 2 or maybe 3 hours to tell this story, and if they tried to include EVERY single detail of the book the movie would probably end up at 4 hours or more.

It's actually impossible because of the differences of the entities of a film and a book. If an author describes on 20 pages how a room is filled with things, it can be important to the story or just detailed writing that proves he knows what he's talking about.
A director just can't do so. In a scene where people act in a room, it just shows the room and the things it's filled with WHILE the characters move on, or a few special things are introduced with some close up shots. But, in fact, a director just shows them by the way, he does not have to describe them in a way an author does, and he can't.

[RS8MB0R8]

The book is actually, as all books tend to be, more narrative which allows for environments, characters and atmosphere to be conveyed a lot more clearly and emotively than in a film which HAS to be adapted from a book so that characters actually have stuff to say! This just expands on what Captain Crash said above.

If you want to read a good book on the history of Middle-Earth, I'd recommend 'The Silmarillion.' It can be difficult to get into but if you persevere, it's really quite enjoyable and explains a lot of things in the films that you wouldn't understand otherwise.

The fact is, the films were aimed primarily at the people who had read the books but obviously they had to make them 'watchable' for those that haven't. Therefore, there are gonna be bits that don't make sense or leave questions apparently unanswered unless you go home with renewed interest and read Tolkien's originals.

[*ºÇåptäîn¤Çrä§hº*]

The book is actually, as all books tend to be, more narrative which allows for environments, characters and atmosphere to be conveyed a lot more clearly and emotively than in a film which HAS to be adapted from a book so that characters actually have stuff to say! This just expands on what Captain Crash said above.

If you want to read a good book on the history of Middle-Earth, I'd recommend 'The Silmarillion.' It can be difficult to get into but if you persevere, it's really quite enjoyable and explains a lot of things in the films that you wouldn't understand otherwise.

The fact is, the films were aimed primarily at the people who had read the books but obviously they had to make them 'watchable' for those that haven't. Therefore, there are gonna be bits that don't make sense or leave questions apparently unanswered unless you go home with renewed interest and read Tolkien's originals.

Exactly, and I haven't even read the books. But I will.

[cih_hr]

You cinema sounds crap, lol


I'm affraid it is a crap. :(


I haven't read too many books before seeing the movie, as it is usually a movie that attracts me to a book, but I still think cinema is a great medium for telling stories if it is done well.
For me it's opposite, I can't live without reading and I'm rarely going to cinema, and usually it's a good book that attracts me to a movie.

Nat

[mreto]

Lord Of The Rings sucks.

just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's a bad film.

But he’s not really defined as a character, no background story. Instead of giving it some magic it's the problem with the story itself.

if you wanted the background stories, you should have watched the extended editions where a lot of background is given. plus there's also a lot in the cinema versions, but it's hidden quite well, you're not the only one who didn't find it.

keep running into new characters, who just kind of show up, bad and good, and aren’t distinguishable from one another. It just seems like they were probably in the book, so Jackson just threw them in the film, much like Harry Potter, to please the fans.

some of the characters were left to make the film a bit more concise, but still there are too many for you to distinguish them? you probably prefer these 2 character films then? jackson has actually really carefully choosen which characters he wanted in the film and which he wanted not in it.

Saruman, played by Christopher Lee looking even more old than Ian McKellen as Gandalf, is apparently the leader of the bad guys, but his presence is barely felt.

no, he's not the leader. and he has to look old because the character he's playing is very old. isn't that logic?

The first part isn't a good film,we’re just left with a cliffhanger for no good reason. Jackson clearly does not understand the structure an epic like this should take.

first of all: the book ends like this. this would be reason enough to end the film like this too. BUT there's a lot of other things why this isn't a cliffhanger at all. you say "the empire won" in empire strikes back, so it's a complete film. in "the fellowship" it's exactly the same thing: the fellowship is destroyed at the end, so the film is over. is that so hard to understand?

the special effects, in most parts, are campy like the recent Mummy series. He uses too many close ups, and most of the time while in close up, the backgrounds look extremely fake, like a painted cardboard.

first of all i think most of the effects are a hundred times better than the effects in the new star wars films, that you seem to like so much. secondly: why would the background look fake on the close-ups? they were filmed an the same locations as the wideshots, a lot of them not in a studio but outdoors. how can a real landscape suddenly look fake and like painted cardboard on a close-up?

To top it off, one of the aspects that drives films like Star Wars and even Indiana Jones and makes them epic in stature are their exciting memorable classical scores by John Williams. The Rings score doesn’t drive the action scenes, nor is it memorable or exciting.

in my eyes the score is fantastic. it's actually one of the best things on the film and it definitely drives the action. they didn't want to make a movie with pop or rock sound like it is common these days and they didn't want melodies that take too much of the attention. (indiana jones: when the titel music comes up, everybody concentrates on the music) the music is only somethig to help creat the emotions, it's not something that "really happened" like the things you see. so it shouldn't take a to bis part in a film. plus most of the music are original poems and songs written by tolkien.



i'm not saying that this is the best movie ever, nor am i saying that it is one of my favorites. but it is definitely a good one, and especially the extended versions are very good!

overrated? of course! but star wars is even more overrated!

and of course the books are a lot better, but i haven't seen a single film so far that came even close to the book. this is actually one of the best book adoptions in my eyes because it cares much about details of the book and at the same time doesn't try to only copy the book but make a totally different work out of it.

[Jag]

Aloha !
I truly appreciate George Lucas’s fantasy world and even Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

phantom menace????

[RS8MB0R8]

As in STAR WARS EPISODE I - just like STAR WARS EPISODE II is called 'Attack Of The Clones'. Same with all Star Wars films actually -

EPISODE IV - A New Hope
EPISODE V - The Empire Strikes Back
EPISODE VI - Return Of The Jedi

[Thierry]

Aloha !

And this is why :

Lord Of The Rings sucks. I thought I missed the magic, but after watching Star Wars and feeling the Force again I knew LOTR is one of the most overrated movies ever. Probably a few people will say Star Wars can't be compared to LOTR, and I'll have to agree with them, as Star Wars is much better.

After sitting through the excruciatingly frivolously hours each time I watched a new part of the trilogy with the so called fantasy epic by lackey director Peter Jackson, not only was my butt and my patience numb, but The Lord of the Rings made me realize how much I truly appreciate George Lucas’s fantasy world and even Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

To start off, the main character, Frodo, played by a sedated Elijah Wood, has no personality. He’s a hobbit and the only one who can touch the main ring and not be seduced by the dark forces. But he’s not really defined as a character, no background story. Instead of giving it some magic it's the problem with the story itself. Frodo and his fellowship, or guardians, go on a journey to destroy this ring and keep running into new characters, who just kind of show up, bad and good, and aren’t distinguishable from one another. It just seems like they were probably in the book, so Jackson just threw them in the film, much like Harry Potter, to please the fans.

It’s because of this that I couldn’t identify with any of the characters, especially the evil ones. Saruman, played by Christopher Lee looking even more old than Ian McKellen as Gandalf, is apparently the leader of the bad guys, but his presence is barely felt. New goblins and demons keep on popping up out of nowhere to take on Frodo and his gang while there’s no clear presence or understanding of what exactly it is they're fighting. Yeh we know they're all going for the ring, but from the enemy's it isn't exactly made clear why each enemy wants it.

George Lucas and Star Wars in general has been criticized for poor direction, stiff acting, and bad dialogue. But Lucas understands story, structure, and length of his fantasy films. He doesn’t make three-hour epics with no ending. Sure, Darth Vader gets away at the end of Star Wars: A New Hope, but the good guys had a clear objective, blow up the Death Star, and they completed it. Lucas didn’t leave us with a cliffhanger until The Empire Strikes Back when we already knew and were familiar with the characters. And even then it was a complete film; Luke faced Vader and the Empire won overall.

The first part isn't a good film,we’re just left with a cliffhanger for no good reason. Jackson clearly does not understand the structure an epic like this should take.

Jackson also shows his inexperience as a director too. The visual style he's used in the past doesn’t work for a film like this and the special effects, in most parts, are campy like the recent Mummy series. He uses too many close ups, and most of the time while in close up, the backgrounds look extremely fake, like a painted cardboard. The main star, Elijah Wood shows little or no emotion at all. Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Viggo Mortensen, and Sean Bean act the same as well. So to use close ups so often is not too intelligent.

The only two actors that really stand out are Ian Holm as Bilbo Baggins and Ian McKellen as Gandalf. The only problem with Gandalf is when he saves himself with a special effect that looks like something out of The Thunderbirds.

To top it off, one of the aspects that drives films like Star Wars and even Indiana Jones and makes them epic in stature are their exciting memorable classical scores by John Williams. The Rings score doesn’t drive the action scenes, nor is it memorable or exciting. Just plain boring. I went to the kitchen for some chips and a coke while the entire fighting scene with the Orks was going on. When I came back it was still going on and nothing had changed. I went to pee as well, and when I came back still the same boring fightscene was going on.

The action scenes are lame as well. Since there’s no distinct bad guy, it’s just a bunch of people fighting and killing each other, no climax, and no real excitement. When one fight scene was over they just moved onto the next, up until of course the film just ended.

Boring boring boring. It's overrated and if it wasn't for the book it wouldn't have been such a succes. Ah yeh this became a long story but I'm sick at home and was bored this time.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Shut up Sebastiaan!

[Supersonic]

Aloha !


Shut up Sebastiaan!

Poor you. Instead of being proud at the bond that's between us as friends you think making a line is more important then taking me, your friend, serious. I am deeply disappointed in you. :(

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan