Viewing Thread:
"Who likes LOTR?"

Well I actually never bothered with any of it. I was once subjected to 30 mins or so of the first movie, and it nearly bored me to tears. Very very dull I thought. I've been told countless times by people that the 1st installement is just the scene setter. Although surely if the 1st of a trilogy doesn't float your boat then why would the others? Or is it just me and only geeks like this type of cinema? If so it appears that 90% of the population are geeks...

You could say that some people only liked and went to see the films, because they had read the books. Its like harry potter. I love the books and have seen the films. Although it was nice to see the 'harry potter world' brought to life, they weren't the best films ever made. I just saw them as I was curious about how it had turned out onscreen.

Try the Silmarillion.

Much shorter.

Ahar.

I quite like the films but I can't read the books. I tried but it was so long winded.

The extended films are just even better. Great stuff.

Got the extended boxset. Perfection.

Okay, I just edited my message. I was saying, actually, that it's not perfect, but it's no mean feat.

I think I would be a lot more critical if I had not directed and written my own play recently - that took a year to make and I had no budget and lost 10 pounds doing it... at the end of it I think my doctor told me to go home and sleep (I say I think, because it was all a blur.)

So really... you can be really critical, and I AM, because I hate most things about pop-culture, and I also AM a real snob, but when it comes to LOTR films I really can't find the heart to criticize them anymore; some scenes were really g*d-damn good acting... and good set design, and good animation.

As a whole... well, the idea of bringing 6 books to life on screen is very new, so I'll forgive a lot of things.

Oh yeah, and I'm writing this because not only am I insomniac, I am on medical leave from writing plays, directing plays, and actual WORK. I know that in a few minutes I will watch the recorded version of my own work and think to myself: "Why did you let that actor stand there? Why did you write that insipid line? Why are you in the frame? Why didn't you kick the prop-guy in the nuts?"

Okay guys... take it easy and have a great day (it was nice finding this page.)

P.S. I don't know what "NP" stands for, but you're welcome.

EyeswithFeet wrote:
> Thank you, Peter Jackson, for putting it on screen.

np

I just watched the extended versions of "The Fellowship", "Two Towers" and "Return of the Ring" on DVD. I thought the theatrical versions of the latter two films were very choppy and tedious; after fifteen minutes it didn't even register that I was watching a film, I just heard white noise - the battle sounds turned into white noise, it was like video archives of a British football match. On the extended versions, however, the films made a lot more sense, the characters were really fleshed out, the actors are giving enough screen time to bring middle earth to life, and I really appreciated the films - including the various endings which a few people complained about.

While I do agree that LOTR took great courage and crazy optimism to bring to life - especially since so many people already have an idea of what they want Middle Earth to look like - it cannot ever compare to the book.

Tolkien's book is his book. Peter Jackson's films are his films. If you want the book, read the book, if you want the films, watch them.

Okay, my mind is a little numb right now because I'd been staring at the screen for five hours... but I think I can safely say that LOTR is a film for people who love cinema, not necessarily people who know cinema; not film students (because I have met a lot of them who hated it.)

Yes, the first film was over-expositional and slack. Yes, some characters were a little one-dimensional: "the sun is red... blood has been spilt this morning..." (Or something to that effect.) Yes, sometimes the story telling was a mess - like taffy. However, I think the public responded well to LOTR because they needed to believe that there was this short, fat guy from New Zealand, who had not made many films before (at least not of the blockbuster variety), and was now going to go against all expectations to make a film about a six-book epic tale considered to be a literary classic.

LOTR is a film for people who go to the cinema and want to suspend disbelief; and considering that it was of the "blockbuster" category, it's a lot better than a lot of films in that category, that I have seen in the past few years (that were made in the past few years.) But LOTR is not the greatest film on earth. I hope that is yet to come.

I read the Lord of the Rings, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion when I was little. Thank you, Peter Jackson, for putting it on screen.

eye'Aoe wrote:
> Books are greater than everything else which is greater than the
> films? So the movies are crap?
>
> In my opinion, yes.

Aha. Just checking. Thought that's what you meant.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> eye'Aoe wrote:
> Books Everything else Films.
>
> Books are greater than everything else which is greater than the
> films? So the movies are crap?

In my opinion, yes.

Light wrote:
> I've also read The Silmarillion. And I enjoyed it.

Same here. And I love moreso "The Hobbit".