The Lord of the Rings phenomenon: please fill me in...

Ashley Rodriguez36 NewcomerOP

1 message
joined Apr 2003

#1 · May 5, 2003

I get what you're saying more or less.
To me, > is just a little story > wrote for his kids, based on medieval fantasy—which honestly doesn't do much for me.
But look, there are billions of people who are absolutely obsessed with D&D, >, and all that stuff, so they think the movie is incredible, along with any other similar projects.
They just aren't being objective.

William Scott40 Member

19 messages
joined Dec 2002

#2 · May 5, 2003

People have actually covered this topic quite a bit on here if you bother to dig through the archives, but I guess it really just comes down to personal taste.

You can also find some jokes about Lord of the Rings and a few other movies over here🙂

http://www.punchbaby.com/clip_movies.htm

fadedsailor932 Active Member

101 messages
joined Oct 2004

#3 · May 5, 2003

Originally posted by Aux1
As far as I can tell, those Lord of the Rings books are just massive doorstops that basically every metalhead, high schooler, and engineering student at MIT knows by heart...

...LMAOOO 🙏 🙏

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#4 · May 5, 2003

I’d suggest reading the books first. They might be thick, but once you get hooked, you won't be able to stop until you've finished all three. Especially if you're into sci-fi, fantasy, or similar genres.
For me, Conan the Barbarian is an incredibly powerful film. Lord of the Rings can practically hide in a mousehole compared to it, but that's just talking about the movies. Comparing J.R.R. Tolkien's books to the Conan film? It’s an impossible comparison.

To be honest, I think the Lord of the Rings films are total garbage—just mass-marketed fluff produced by someone who understands the fantasy genre about as well as I understand Nikita Khrushchev's sex life. He just went through genius Tolkien's work whenever he felt like it, and all the changes are at a primary school level, completely lacking soul or imagination.
That’s my take on it. Regardless, read the books first and you won't regret it; otherwise, I guarantee you won't even make it halfway through.

Jack Harris3 Regular

451 messages
joined Dec 2002

#5 · May 5, 2003

silentpilot6 said:Honestly, I think the Lord of the Rings movies are absolute garbage. They’re just watered-down versions made for the masses, directed by someone who understands the fantasy genre about as well as I understand Nikita Khrushchev's sex life. He just picked through the genius Tolkien whenever it suited him, and all the changes they made feel like something out of an elementary school classroom... totally lacking any soul or imagination.

👍 🙏
Conan the Barbarian is ten times better and actually feels "real." Plus, the soundtrack is insane. 😁

The Lord of the Rings books have plenty of flaws and plot holes (I mean, Peter Jackson's only smart move was cutting Tom Bombadil—personally, I would've cut him from the books too 😁), but they managed to build this specific atmosphere while reading that the movies just can't touch... not even close.
As much as those books are cult classics to me, the movies are just trash. 😁
I'm not even sure I would've liked them if I hadn't read the books first.
Even having really good cinematography doesn't help that much...

David Phillips Member

12 messages
joined Jan 2006

#6 · May 5, 2003

"The Fellowship of the Ring" is actually a decent enough movie, mostly because they kept the changes to the source material to a bare minimum, but "The Two Towers"? That’s just pure garbage.
That isn't Lord of the Rings...

briskmarlin59 Member

15 messages
joined Mar 2003

#7 · May 5, 2003

I’m a massive fan of Lord of the Rings; I’ve revisited every single volume more times than I can count. That said, compared to the book, the movie is a disaster. The characterization and iconization are completely off, and the core themes feel diluted, especially since they injected so much "Hollywood humor" that just makes everything worse. Honestly, watching it left me feeling pretty frustrated. If I had never read the book, I probably would have enjoyed it—the production design and costuming are top-tier, and there are definitely some segments that are executed quite well.

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#8 · May 5, 2003

I’m going to step in and defend J.R.R. Tolkien for a moment—even if Tom Bombadil is a complete idiot. People quote his poetry and throw verses around left and right; what else could possibly be wrong with the books?

Is the first movie good? Did it deviate too much from the book? You can think what you want. I don't want to get into a heavy debate right now, but I have to disagree with you.
Everything missed the mark. From the overall atmosphere down to the Black Riders, the Moria sequence, and even how Saruman's green lightning—which looks like something out of a B-list horror flick, and let's face it, that's Peter Jackson's specialty—creates a storm that forces them to divert into Moria. HAHAHA. Then there are those "Đinovski octopuses" that aren't even in the book, of course. In the text, you just see tentacles, which adds to the mystery and mood, but no, Jackson had to show the entire world that it was actually one giant octopus. And don't get me started on the trolls being different from the book, or how in the book, when they encounter the Balrog, Aragorn, Gimli, and the gang are practically shaking in their boots—to the point where I think Aragorn almost drops his sword—whereas in the movie, they act like these big heroes ready to jump straight into a brawl. I won't go any further, or I might get carried away since that wasn't my original intention.
All in all, I wouldn't say Peter Jackson was staying "like a drunken plot" regarding the book during filming. Think about it. If he actually had, the movie would have been much better. He could have just said, "This is my vision and my take on Tolkien's work," instead of claiming he was sticking faithfully to the original.
It isn't even an issue that he cut things out due to the runtime, or that Tom Bombadil is a total fool. But the parts he actually did include from the book? Just give us that, man, and film it literally.
As for the second part—well, that was just pure garbage and such a massive deviation it's unbelievable.
Enough about that. Just read the book; push through the first twenty pages which aren't particularly gripping, and everything after that is pure enjoyment.

David Phillips Member

12 messages
joined Jan 2006

#9 · May 5, 2003

Complaining about the Black Riders or any other visual nitpicks is honestly just shouting into the void. At the end of the day, Peter Jackson isn't some kind of psychic who can somehow manifest the exact, hyper-specific imagery living inside every single reader's head.
So, I suppose we're just talking about subjective perception here.

But cutting scenes and fundamentally altering the book? Now, that's a completely different conversation.

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#10 · May 5, 2003

Visual complaints? What "visual complaints" have I even raised?
You brought up the Black Riders. Fine. What do Tolkien's Black Riders look like?
They are dark, hunched figures with glowing eyes, possessing a "shrill" voice and radiating a black mist around them. Their presence is terrifying because they seem truly "out of this world."
Then you have Peter Jackson's Black Riders. Just tall thugs who probably spend their free time training in boxing or acting tough at some local dive bar; they have deep voices and there's nothing behind their eyes. Black mist? What even is that? They only "scare" people with their macho aesthetic.
So now, is this a mindless butchering of the book by someone with no connection to fantasy, or is it a visual complaint?

David Phillips Member

12 messages
joined Jan 2006

#11 · May 5, 2003

silentpilot6 said:Visual complaints? What "visual complaints" have I even voiced here?
You brought up the Black Riders. Fine. How are Tolkien's Black Riders described?
They are pale, hunched figures with glowing eyes, possessing a "squeaky" voice, and emitting a black breath around them. They terrify people with their "out of this world" presence.
Then there are Peter Jackson's Black Riders. Just tall thugs who probably spend their free time training for boxing matches or causing trouble in bars; they speak with deep voices, yet there's nothing but emptiness inside those hoods. Black breath? What on earth is that supposed to be? They "terrify" people just by looking like macho tough guys.
So, is this some moronic rewriting of the book by someone who doesn't understand fantasy, or is it a visual complaint?

Yeah, just big, burly thugs...
If I recall correctly, they were hunched over in the movie too—both on their horses and when they walked into the room where the hobbits were staying at the Prancing Pony.
Or maybe my memory is failing me?

Training for boxing and acting out in bars? Give me a break...

Speaking in deep voices?
I wouldn't say that; they scream.

And what exactly is this "black breath" supposed to be? They are literal rot; that’s how they look, and that's how their horses look. What kind of black breath? Are we supposed to expect a smoke machine effect every time they show up?

Peter Jackson saw them one way, I saw them differently, and you saw them differently. That’s just how it works because the book is written that way; everyone has their own mental image of the story.

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#12 · May 5, 2003

Aren't they just oversized thugs? Please. They're actually larger than Aragorn.
I didn't even notice him screaming during the negotiations with Liv across the river.

They're built like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
If they aren't training boxing or hanging out at local pubs in their downtime, what exactly do they do?
They spend their time training for the Ultimate fight and acting like bouncers at VeselogTroll's club.👍

And there isn't a single word mentioned about their eyes or their limp.😉.

David Phillips Member

12 messages
joined Jan 2006

#13 · May 5, 2003

Quote : Originally posted by David Phillips
Exactly, they're just these hulking brutes...
From what I recall, even in the movie, they're hunched over. They ride their horses that way, and even when they walk into the room where the hobbits are staying at the "Prancing Pony."
Or maybe my memory is failing me?

Well, go ahead and throw clumsiness into the mix too...
Why don't you try quoting a passage from the book where they negotiate with Arwen on behalf of Frodo?
You can't, because it was changed.
That isn't some matter of "subjective visualization"—it’s straight-up altering the original source material.
And I think you know exactly what I mean by that.

The Black Riders were once kings of men.
Human beings—and not just any humans, but kings—all fallen under Sauron's control.
What kind of stature do you expect them to have? Smaller than Gimli?

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#14 · May 5, 2003

They ought to be exactly as they were portrayed in the book, nothing else.👍

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#15 · May 5, 2003

That version just doesn't exist. The guy basically ruined the best scene just so he could squeeze in some Elven smithing.
In that scene, they’re supposed to have those deep, resonant voices.

David Phillips Member

12 messages
joined Jan 2006

#16 · May 5, 2003

In the first movie, I feel like they kept things relatively grounded, making only minimal changes that didn't really mess with the overall flow of the story much at all.

But honestly? "The Two Towers" is an absolute caricature. It’s just so riddled with logical inconsistencies that I’ll probably end up watching the final part just out of pure curiosity, simply to see how on earth they manage to untangle this entire mess...

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#17 · May 5, 2003

"Minimal changes," I wouldn't say. Honestly, I just don't want to waste any more of my time on this cinematic trash.
The second installment definitely leaves you feeling frustrated, and as for the third—I'm genuinely worried about what they might come up with next.

ironbadger31 Active Member

79 messages
joined Jan 2008

#18 · May 5, 2003

Look, the philosophy here is actually pretty straightforward
if you’ve read the book and then watched the movie, 95% of the time you’re gonna say it just doesn't capture that specificvibe or the overall atmosphere
you can't really nail down why by nitpicking individual scenes—whether they were left out of the movie or added from the pages—it's more than that
the movie is perfectly fine if you're just an empty sponge who doesn't care about fantasy and isn't looking for any deep satisfaction from it
objectively, everyone will probably dig the visual effects, the graphics, the scenery, and the dialogue—maybe the acting is a bit hit-or-miss—but all in all, it'll be a decent little flick
but now, if you happen to run into a Lord of the Rings freak like silentpilot6 or someone like me who wants to tear this movie apart, the rant goes a little something like this:
that hack Peter Jackson should honestly just bury himself up to his ears for a few good reasons:
1. Frodo is a total miss. Elijah Wood only knows how to act "pathetic," and everyone gives him props for it like he's some kind of genius... give me a break. Any idiot could play that character. Plus, the guy even admitted he only read the book because he had to for the role, so basically 👎
2. Aragorn is also a huge disappointment. Viggo Mortensen comes across as nothing more than some scruffy, overgrown bohemian living in a trailer, pretending to be some legendary workaholic. I couldn't care less about his portrayal when, according to the source material, he's supposed to be absolutely imposing
3. I absolutely CANNOT get past the Ents and how they handled them in the film...
man, in the book there are only a handful of them, maybe ten at most, but this guy turns them into a massive army of 500,000 manic destroyers and absolute beasts...👎
4. There's plenty more where that came from. Honestly, I think the movie's atmosphere is just non-existent, rather than being poorly translated
in the book, the atmosphere is phenomenal, but in the movie? It's just not there
and don't even get me started on that weird version of Galadriel and the flamboyant Legolas 🙄

silentpilot6 Regular

295 messages
joined Sep 2004

#19 · May 5, 2003

ironbadger31 said:The logic here is actually quite straightforward.
In about 95% of cases, if you've read the book and then watched the movie, you’ll feel like it missed the mark, whether it's the vibe or the overall atmosphere.
You can't really break it down by specific scenes—whether they were cut from the film or added in—because it's deeper than that.
The movie works perfectly fine if you're just an empty sponge who doesn't care for fantasy and finds no joy in it.
Objectively, everyone will enjoy the visual effects, the graphics, the scenery, and the dialogue; the acting might be hit-or-miss, but overall, it'll be a decent enough flick.
But, if you happen to run into a Lord of the Rings fanatic like silentpilot6 or myself, the critique looks more like this:
That hack Peter Jackson should honestly just bury himself up to his ears for several reasons:
1. Frodo is a complete failure of a character; Elijah Wood only knows how to act pathetic, and people praise him like he's some kind of genius... give me a break. Any idiot could play that role, and besides, he admitted he only read the book for the sake of the movie, so 👎
2. Aragorn is also terrible; Viggo Mortensen is nothing more than some scruffy bohemian living in a trailer, pretending to be some legendary workaholic. I have zero respect for his portrayal, especially since the source material demands someone truly imposing.
3. I absolutely cannot get past the Ents and how they were depicted...
In the book, there are only a few of them—maybe ten at most—but the movie turns them into a massive army of 500,000 manic destroyers.👎
4. There is plenty more, but generally speaking, the film lacks any sense of atmosphere, rather than just failing to translate it.
The book's atmosphere is phenomenal; the movie has none.
And don't even get me started on that ridiculous version of Galadriel and the effeminate Legolas. 🙄

Exactly, man.🙏
I could add plenty of other things to your list, but you've already highlighted the main points I resent the most.
I'll just mention that ridiculous scene where Frodo tries to hand the ring to the Black Rider; the Nazgûl starts to reach for it, and then suddenly a bunch of guys with arrows jump out and chase him off. It's unbelievable.

It would be a bit like me being fully geared up and ready to go, only for a three-year-old with a toothpick to stop me from enjoying a cold beer that was practically asking for it.😁

Jason Morgan2 Member

22 messages
joined Dec 2002

#20 · May 6, 2003

Jason Morgan2:
Can you suggest some sci-fi or fantasy—and please don't include those soap opera sagas like Santa Barbara, which are absolute garbage—that actually hits all those marks?

Well, if I am allowed to count things like Santa Barbara and similar shows, then I suppose I could give you some names. But if we are excluding them, then honestly, finding something that fits all those criteria is quite difficult. 🙂

The Lord of the Rings phenomenon: please fill me in...

🔗 Similar threads