who else is with me?

on other online communities, everyone has seen the movie titled LOTR, and the second one, two towers, or something.
anyone here that hasn't seen either of them, and doesn't want to?
I have done nothing that has anything related to LOTR directly in my life.

BTW, this isn't a flame or anything, I just want to know. As I seem like the only one at other places.

o_O

You are different and strange.

You're not alone, I haven't seen either of them, nor have I read the books. The tv commercials and everything I've actually seen so far about it makes me think it's simply "gay". What's strange is that I am friends with one of the biggest LOTR freaks and he's unable to even convince me to get off my ass and rent it. I actually believe that him wanting me to see it soo bad is half of the reason why I really don't want to see it. Even him saying it has drug related refrences isn't enough anymore.

Where is hellbent anyway?

KoRn said:

BTW, this isn't a flame or anything, I just want to know. As I seem like the only one at other places.

Bingo.

Growing up read everything I could get my hands on. I'm not going to assume anything about your age Korn (what the hell, sure I am), but these books were ritualistic in my family. My dad has the first printing (Houghton Mifflin, 1965 IIRC) of the books at his place, that's what we all read.

So I'm not going to pretend I know how much you read, but if you're anything like most kids these days you have to hold a gun to their head to get them to read anything.

I have read the books and seen the movies, but I think they suck.

/me proudly raises his hand.

I've only read the first book. None of the movies. Very good from what I've seen.

When I was younger I read a lot of fantasy and fantasy horror books (Moorcock, Lovecraft, etc). Although I loved 'At the mountains of madness' and other such stories, I wasn't in the mood to read any other books that were top heavy in pages upon pages of description (which was exactly how LOTR was described to me). So I never got around to reading LOTR. As a result I didn't have too many preconceptions about what the film would be like.

I sat down to watch the film thinking 'Excellent! Three hours of big budget fantasy, this should be great!' It wasn't. It's a bad sign when halfway through a film you start think 'I wish this film would hurry up and end'. The pacing of the film was awful, the dialogue was below par and it seemed to stumble along. It ended up being slow and dull.

To a lot of people LOTR seems to be some sort of 'sacred cow' that you can't mess with. So I appreciate that not too much tinkering could be done with the scenes, but it suffers as a result. It seems to me that if LOTR had never been written and someone had come along and made this film, a damn sight more would have been cut out. The film should have been trimmed down to at most 2 hours (probably less).

We now have to option of buying the collectors DVD with a whole half hour of additional footage. Argh, another 30 minutes of tedious snore fest? No thankyou.

Can't comment on the second film as I haven't seen it.

A funny thing is that alot of my school friends considered me a geek for reading Moorcock (etc) and playing roleplaying games (RQ, AD&D,etc). They were constantly taking the piss out of the fantasy genre. Now that LOTR has been made and it's trendy, they are all like "Hey we've always been into the genre. LOTR is our favourite book and film".

There seem to be an awful lot of people around who have suddenly decided they've been a lifelong LOTR fan, even though they had never heard of it until a couple of years ago.

I bought the first one on DVD, but I didnt actually see it in the theatre. Only reason bought it was because it was playing in the store, which had a really good soundsystem (im a sucker for bass). So I bought it. I watched it that same day, but I cant remember a damn thing about it other than it was uncomfortably long and uneventful (almost dull). I then lent it to a friend and she still hasnt returned it, or watched it. This was like 6 months ago.

Yeah I saw them. I had read the books (LOTR, plus The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, etc.) more than once since my teens, and even decided to reread the 1st book before seenig the 1st movie.

I don't think I'm a "fan" of Tolkien. Even though initially maybe I was, I've often been more critical, and don't like some of the characteristics of his writing too much. Mainly his overly descriptive way of writing and the christian view of things that carries into his stories. Nonetheless I feel his works are worthy and also quite valid as the main foundation of a lot of activity nowadays (RPGs & fantasy in general practically owe it to Tolkien.) Like Russell_P I'm more of a fan of authors like Moorcock (with the battle between law and chaos as opposed to good vs. evil in Tolkien) and Lovecraft (with his weird literature and "inhuman" morality.) As well as other stuff that I read, of course.

So I went to see the first movie and I thought it was good, although when I saw it first I was in a critical mode and compared it too much with the book. It was fun to find differences but I think that sort of ruined watching it... not much, but a bit. I kind of felt that the movie was too short and wondered why some things had been taken out. One thing that was missing was what probably inspired the "neutral" alignment in RPGs... the mountain over Moria and Saruman were both clearly on Sauron's side (or so it seemed) instead of being somewhat independent.

I didn't do that in respect to the second movie, and indeed I saw it in a more "fresh" way, clearly noting how any possible changes made sense as part of a movie. The two mediums (written and filmed) need to show different things to be effective. filmes often need to symbolyze what's described in text... and the movies do that well, changing things to make them more viewable but keeping their character. Talking about character, that one thing these movies have. They are not just visual movies, they actually have strong, well portrayed characters in many of the roles... unlike in the Star Wars movies... though Christopher Lee kicks butt anywhere.

Actually in many respects the movies are better than the books. They do get rid of some Tolkienish touches I didn't like that much, and after all, Tolkien's work is very visual, so, it isn't surprising that it can be put on camera effectively. Aso, strangely, even though the movies were very long, it didn't feel that way at all... they could have lasted an hour longer and I'd be seeng them just as well. I did see the extended version at a freind's a while back and it was cool too.

You people often amaze me.
The LOTR series are movies for movie watchers.
Elegant, rich, and splendid. Jackson did a great job translating it to the screen. great vision.
There certainly aren't many movies made that are on its level for production and quality.
Might I ask what was better than it that was released last year?
And compared to movies like EpisodeII, Memento, and A Beautiful Mind, LOTR is truly magnificent.
btw, the full version of FOTRing is better than the original version.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion... no reason you have to ever like or even watch the movies... I just say you are missing out.

I haven't seen any and don't really want to. Never read the books, either.

My only contact with LOTR is through the Odyssey2 game, that one which you had to put a kind of card over the console´s keyboard to make it fit the game. Oh, good memories...
And everything related to LOTR nowadays seems too childish to me.

I've watched the FotR movie about 5 times, and was incredibly intrigued by its characters and settings. It was one of the best movies I'd ever seen in the theatre. The extended version was great as well. I was on the verge of becoming a LotR nut, even to the point of reading the books, but then I saw the Two Towers and lost all interest in the series.

Lüt said:
I've watched the FotR movie about 5 times, and was incredibly intrigued by its characters and settings. It was one of the best movies I'd ever seen in the theatre. The extended version was great as well. I was on the verge of becoming a LotR nut, even to the point of reading the books, but then I saw the Two Towers and lost all interest in the series.

Same here.

I didn't read the book, I hate reading. I've seen both of the movies tho, it was ok. Sometimes long but good in general. I wouldn't see it another time because it's so damn long. I'll surely buy all of them when they make the big DVD box with the 3 of them included.

Russell_P said:

The pacing of the film was awful, the dialogue was below par and it seemed to stumble along. It ended up being slow and dull.

To a lot of people LOTR seems to be some sort of 'sacred cow' that you can't mess with. So I appreciate that not too much tinkering could be done with the scenes, but it suffers as a result.

The three films are actually designed to strike a happy medium between the pace of the books and the standard movie pace that today's generally impatient, action loving movie go-ers demand. This has actually pissed off far more obsessed Tolkein fans than it has impatient movie go-ers.

AndrewB mode

The attitude of most modern movie-goers - along with the ever growing greed of Hollywood of course - is unfortunately why we'll probably never see a return to the classics of the 50's such as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, etc. In those days, the vast majority of people actually went along for the story rather than the action, be it sex or violence or whatever. If this had never changed, undoubtly the LOTR films would have been even bigger successes (and probably at least an hour longer each ;) ).

/AndrewB mode

Apparently - I haven't read it myself (although I keep meaning to) but I've been told - in the FOTR book, the Hobbits don't even leave the shire until page 100. Imagine what the pace would have been like if they'd actually carried this over to the film :)

On a lighter note: does anyone know whether the rumour that there are two modern conrete bollards visible in one scene in FOTR is true or not?

You guys are weird* (or trolls... may the sun turn you both to stone!) The second movie has the better acting, more coherent action, and is generally more entertaing and solid, whereas the first is still good but is a bit lacking in certain parts, such as Elrond's house and some other details.

NiGHTMARE, yeah, I guess I was lucky and possibly among the optimal target type for the movie; familiar with the books, with a linking for them, but by no means a blind follower/fan.

* To not be confusing, since NiGHTMARE posted, I mean you two adim dudes.

I haven't read much of the books yet, but I have seen the two movies. As far as I can tell they're about perfect in every respect, and would have made Tolkien very proud indeed.

I've seen both movies and the first 3/4ths of the first book, and I think they (FotR anyway) are superb book to movie productions. Very few movies actually make me emotional and both of them did it. Also, the pace in the book was much slower than in the movie, which isn't a bad thing, it's just you can only sit in the cinema for so long, if you know what I mean.

NiGHTMARE said:

AndrewB mode......

The attitude of most modern movie-goers - along with the ever growing greed of Hollywood of course - is unfortunately why we'll probably never see a return to the classics of the 50's such as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, etc. In those days, the vast majority of people actually went along for the story rather than the action, be it sex or violence or whatever. If this had never changed, undoubtly the LOTR films would have been even bigger successes (and probably at least an hour longer each ;)

Hmm, most of my favourite films come from the black and white era, when story and dialogue was paramount. Unfortunately I felt that the first LOTR film had almost no story at all and poor dialogue which wasn't even remotely good enough to carry the film. To group it in the same catagory as those old classics is almost an insult to those films IMHO.

This film is based on a book. The dialogue and story in the film come from this book. Oh yes, and the book in question is generally held to be part of one of the greatest trilogies ever written.

In fact, if a few decades ago, you'd have told someone that Casablance or Citizen Kane's stories where anywhere near as good as the LOTR novels, they'd have most likely laughed at you.

I therefore think it is safe, also bearing in mind the superb acting and direction in FOTR, to say that is more than fair to group it with these classics.

I have absolutely no interest in watching the movies, so I'm with you.

I wouldn't equate The Lord of the Rings with early cinematography. And this has nothing to do with quality, which as I said, stands high in these two movies. What's this about a lack of a story and poor dialogue? Possibly you do not understand that these movies make up an epic, not a standard 19th-20th century drama, and the character "development" and roles are very different. But I won't explain myself further unless you have something more thought provoking to say...

outcasts.

Top ten reasons why some people think the LOTR films are crap:

10) There are no wise-cracking, smart arsed 'comic relief' style characters.

9) There are really old people in them!

8) There's never any swearing (not even made up swear words!)

7) There are no annoying little kiddies.

6) There aren't any guns!

5) There isn't enough blood 'n' guts.

4) There aren't any half naked women!

3) There aren't any sex scenes.

2) It shows characters of the same sex displaying actual, genuine friendship and concern for one another, and even several other positive emotions!

And the number one reason why some people think the LOTR films are crap:

1) There aren't enough explosions!!!!!

NiGHTMARE said:

Top ten reasons why .....

None of the above.

myk said:
The second movie has the better acting, more coherent action, and is generally more entertaing and solid

Acting is ok. I love Aragorn as a character, so I guessed I would love TTT. Silly me.
More coherent action... I'm biased on that. The walking trees part was not that well-filmed nor very 'coherent' imo. And Gandalf coming back from the grave scene was kinda rushed too. But action is sure there... A LOT. Where is the magic? GONE.
More entertaining. Sure. Less philosophical, definitly.
IMO, Jackson felt to the usual flaw: too many effects.
Take the first time we see Gollum for instance: his entire body is shown right away. No suspense. No hand getting out of the shadow. In fact, Jackson was so happy with the look of his CG character (and I can understand why) that he completly forgot everything about film direction. If Gollum had been a live actor, I doubt he would have filmed this scene that way. The cloak turning under Gollum's feet is a perfect example: it's a technical demonstration but the camera angle does not express anything from the story point of view.
What about the Nazguls and their flying dragons? The CG was so badly animated I had hard time not thinking "wow 3D!". In the first film, the black riders on their black horses had something heavy to them... as if they weighted tons; the way they were filmed made them very frigthening imo. In the TTT I didn't even care. Too bad some thousands orcs get more scary than 9 immortal and restless ghosts.
FOTR was a precise, full of ideas and details, real fantasy movie. TTT is an average action movie overloaded with CG.

I hadn't seen either until two days before TTT came out and I rented the first one, which I found ok, then saw TTT, which rocked, though I was a little disappointed by the differences to the book.

Guilty, I read the trilogy when I was about 14.