OMG LOTR: The Return of the King is a ridiculous movie!

[Ns1]

The language is dated, dry, and frankly laughable.

the writings for the LOTR trilogy started in 1937

 

[coolVariable]

uh...if you're 12. the characters are flat and pointless. Not a single literary scholar of any merit considers them great literature. The language is dated, dry, and frankly laughable.

The only worthwhile contribution Tolkien had to literature was the Silmarillon. That was pretty good.

lol, great literature.

For fucks sake--are so many of us this fucking illiterate?

I thought the language isn't bad but the storytelling is really half@ssed!

 

[Crono]

The whole series is an allegory for World War II.

The ghosts were the Russians.

 

[fustercluck]

The LOTR movies didn't have much to compete with at the Oscars. Sure they're all good movies, but none of them are really oscar worthy.

 

[zinfamous]

I thought the language isn't bad but the storytelling is really half@ssed!

it was just over-indulgent, and frankly reflects the worst of classic literature.

"And Lo! He brandished Andruhil, and it's light struck terror in the hearts of demons!"

come
the
fuck
on.

:roll:

Even Tolkien's best bud, CS Lewis, who encouraged him constantly to finish his "Grand Myth," was rather "meh" when first showed the final copy.

 

[sdifox]

They did as well as they could given the scope of the books and reality of movie making.

To do justice to the books the movies would have to be at least twice as long.

 

[zinfamous]

the writings for the LOTR trilogy started in 1937

your point?

Kafka had already bitch-slapped the literary world by then.
Ulysses and been out for just over 2 decades.
Beckett was about to bitch slap Kafka.
Hemingway, Dreiser....
etc...

Somehow, they remain relevant in literature, and wildly discussed to this day.
No one really cares about Tolkien, save for attention-starved teens.

You know who else doesn't read so dated? Shakespeare.

Again, I think the movies are fantastic, the Silmarillon is quite good and, I think, truly reflects what Tolkien set out to do (create England's first "real" mythology--but I don't get it; they already had Beowulf, which is pretty damn good). The LOTR books are a great read for a certain age, but really nothing spectacular beneath the surface. It's good entertainment told with simple, sometimes "groanable" language.

 

[IronWing]

Maybe we can has a Silmarillion movie. The entire audience would be trying to escape at hour fourteen asking each other "WTF was that?"

 

[zinfamous]

They did as well as they could given the scope of the books and reality of movie making.

To do justice to the books the movies would have to be at least twice as long.

this. what was left out needed to be left out. Bitching about Tom Bombadil is simply not caring about a decent flick, or understanding how to make such.

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe we can has a Silmarillion movie. The entire audience would be trying to escape at hour fourteen asking each other "WTF was that?"

 

[IronWing]

One does not simply fly on eagles into Mordor.

Really, they would have been seen far too easily if they tried that.

Also, the eagles are not as concerned with the doings of men, elves, hobbits or dwarves. They happened to help out mainly due to Gandalf and probably some favor owed or something, but they were not a giving bunch that would just do anything for them at any time.

The eagles are beloved of Manwë. Gandalf was sent to Arda by Manwë so it would have made sense for Gandalf to have called the eagles a lot sooner than the last minute nail biter. Then again, Gandalf always was a bit of a drama queen.

 

[xSauronx]

I just watched it, how did it even win the Oscar for best movie? I mean there is no logic behind the movie at all. Are humans retarded or something? If the ghost army is so powerful like it was shown in the movie that it wiped out the Orcs in seconds, why won't the humans let the ghost army fight the whole war and avoid losing any life?

im a lord of the rings fan and agree...it shouldnt be oscar worthy. PJ isnt a great director...some scenes are really good, and some are shitty.

the movies are fun sometimes, but they god damn long so i dont even watch them once a year necessarily

 

[TehMac]

which was the problem with all the lotr films, its just randomish fantasy stuff. the fanboys forgive, but truthfully its bad story telling.

Disagree completely. How is it confusing to you? This is the most basic form of story telling, and more cool, it's basically story telling as it has been for the past 1,000 years.

I watched the first movie, then read Hobbit/LotR Trilogy, then watched Two Towers + RotK

it's very well done both story telling and production wise.

Really you guys? I thought everyone liked LotR, I mean how could you not?

edit: re-reading recent posts, and wow. Not surprised though, not at all.

 

[BoomerD]

Disagree completely. How is it confusing to you? This is the most basic form of story telling, and more cool, it's basically story telling as it has been for the past 1,000 years.

I watched the first movie, then read Hobbit/LotR Trilogy, then watched Two Towers + RotK

it's very well done both story telling and production wise.

Really you guys? I thought everyone liked LotR, I mean how could you not?

edit: re-reading recent posts, and wow. Not surprised though, not at all.

Yet even though you read the books...you STILL rooted for Sauron to defeat those dammed hippies...

 

[Hacp]

There's a bigger flaw. Why didn't they just nuke Mordor from orbit?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

it was just over-indulgent, and frankly reflects the worst of classic literature.

"And Lo! He brandished Andruhil, and it's light struck terror in the hearts of demons!"

come
the
fuck
on.

:roll:

Even Tolkien's best bud, CS Lewis, who encouraged him constantly to finish his "Grand Myth," was rather "meh" when first showed the final copy.

You may be correct, but he is one of a select group of authors, ever to write something that became so much a part of the fabric of a society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frodo_Lives!

Not to shabby for "meh" eh? And Lewis isn't fit to carry J.R.R.'S jock strap.

 

[zinfamous]

You may be correct, but he is one of a select group of authors, ever to write something that became so much a part of the fabric of a society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frodo_Lives!

Not to shabby for "meh" eh? And Lewis isn't fit to carry J.R.R.'S jock strap.

no doubt.

he stands firmly with JK Rowling and Dan Brown for creating such similar societal phenomenons...though Tolkien's is not nearly as popular as the others. Literary quality is about equal, though. (I'd give Tolkien the nod for credibility, at least; his goal was essentially to create a classical "reference" text, rather profit/name recognition)

I'm no real fan of CS Lewis, either, but he tends to get much more respect from the critical audience. He was something of an "accepted" member of the literary "elite," which Tolkien had always wanted to be a part of. :\

 

[darkswordsman17]

So, no one finds it a bit silly that he's saying a movie that takes place in a fictional place, with jesus-wizards (yeah you Gandalf, which by the way is a major fucking gaping fuckup in the plot, that's right it deserves two fucks), magic rings that turn the person invisible, f-ing cave trolls that can't jam a big pointy metal stick through some mythical chain mail, giant elephants (sorry, mean Olyphants, guess they're somehow related to Timothy), is ridiculous because of a ghost army not being used more?

Hell there's even a bit of feminism thrown in, "I am no man!" stab your face and make it implode because when he meant man he meant mankind, but somehow a woman gets to kick that right in the balls.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

no doubt.

he stands firmly with JK Rowling and Dan Brown for creating such similar societal phenomenons...though Tolkien's is not nearly as popular as the others. Literary quality is about equal, though. (I'd give Tolkien the nod for credibility, at least; his goal was essentially to create a classical "reference" text, rather profit/name recognition)

I'm no real fan of CS Lewis, either, but he tends to get much more respect from the critical audience. He was something of an "accepted" member of the literary "elite," which Tolkien had always wanted to be a part of. :\

<Carson>I did not know that</>

I am going to contend the point, that he was not as popular though. Considering the time period, and the series catching fire from that pervasive viral, I'd say he was. I think it is important that we not overlook how many authors he inspired, as well. He sort of set the standard for what defined epic in the emerging genre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fantasy

Yeah, it's wiki, but the articles are not always complete crap. I think this is one of them.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Hell there's even a bit of feminism thrown in, "I am no man!" stab your face and make it implode because when he meant man he meant mankind, but somehow a woman gets to kick that right in the balls.

Just a moment now, she does not take down the witch king, no how, no way, without Merry hamstringing his ass first. And Merry was not mankind, dig?

Even the mankind implication is a leap, because spells in that genre of fiction are often quite specific. Let me put it this way, it is often a impish thing in such stories, to have loopholes that can cost a character dearly.

 

[darkswordsman17]

no doubt.

he stands firmly with JK Rowling and Dan Brown for creating such similar societal phenomenons...though Tolkien's is not nearly as popular as the others. Literary quality is about equal, though. (I'd give Tolkien the nod for credibility, at least; his goal was essentially to create a classical "reference" text, rather profit/name recognition)

I'm no real fan of CS Lewis, either, but he tends to get much more respect from the critical audience. He was something of an "accepted" member of the literary "elite," which Tolkien had always wanted to be a part of. :\

Sorry, but comparing Dan Brown to Tolkien or even Rowling is pretty ridiculous. If it weren't for him going for Christianity, he wouldn't have much notoriety at all. His success was pretty short-lived as well, while Tolkien's basically took years to take off and have just built up even more decades later.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Just a moment now, she does not take down the witch king, no how, no way, without Merry hamstringing his ass first. And Merry was not mankind, dig?

Even the mankind implication is a leap, because spells in that genre of fiction are often quite specific. Let me put it this way, it is often a impish thing in such stories, to have loopholes that can cost a character dearly.

Touche, although I think it was a prophecy and not a spell that was to be fit so its much easier to fit in that bit of ridiculousness. Of course we're both being tongue-in-cheek so no big deal either way.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Touche, although I think it was a prophecy and not a spell that was to be fit so its much easier to fit in that bit of ridiculousness. Of course we're both being tongue-in-cheek so no big deal either way.

LOL oh yeah.

I did think to myself after posting that "Am I really trying to argue this to a guy with the user name Dark Swordsman? Chances are, he knows this genre pretty damned well."

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry, but comparing Dan Brown to Tolkien or even Rowling is pretty ridiculous. If it weren't for him going for Christianity, he wouldn't have much notoriety at all. His success was pretty short-lived as well, while Tolkien's basically took years to take off and have just built up even more decades later.

Dan Brown was a semi-popular summer author before Da Vinci Code. And Da Vinci code exploded well before the Catholic Church got all pissy, thus increasing his exposure. Anyway, it's inaccurate to claim that he would not be popular without the controversy. Da Vinci Code is basically the Name of the Rose (Eco) for the wider lay audience. It's an easy detective sort of read, without the literary implications and stylistic twists that tend to confound the casual reader with an author like Eco.

Brown and Rowling have reached a mass audience--many ages, and far more than a simple stratified fan base. For whatever reason, they seem to appeal to all personalities. Tolkien has, and will always only remain popular to a niche crowd. The movies have exposed him to a wider audience, sure, but he really only appeals to the fantasy/D&D, younger crowd (and those that have grown, and fondly remember reading him when young). He simply doesn't have as wide appeal and never will. Assumptions otherwise just speak of an unwillingness to see beyond the fan appeal. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying it's hard to see beyond his limited appeal when one invests so much attachment into something that they love so much. Naturally, a fan would assume anyone else would love it just as much.

Again, I much prefer Tolkien, but in terms of literary merit, his style isn't any more complex than what you get with someone like Dan Brown and unfortunately, his characters are just as flat, and perhaps even more typed, which sucks. He did exist within academia, but was always sort of a dark horse, trying harder than he should have to really get "in." But he always stuck to his guns despite the advice of his colleagues to stay away from "fantasy trivials." Few people consider the fact that de didn't even have a fan base at that point, so he was literally on his own, with no one to please but the academics whom he was determined to prove wrong--but would essentially fail at doing. That takes balls.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that calling Tolkien a literary stalwart is like calling Jim Morrison a poet. Fans will always say such things because their frame of reference--their ability to actually compare among many artists (or whatever) of the claimed genre--is quite minimal. Tolkien is a god in the fantasy/sci-fi, young adult realm that simply would not exist as it does today without him. He is barely a blip in the wide literary map, however.

 

[Numenorean]

So, no one finds it a bit silly that he's saying a movie that takes place in a fictional place, with jesus-wizards (yeah you Gandalf, which by the way is a major fucking gaping fuckup in the plot, that's right it deserves two fucks), magic rings that turn the person invisible, f-ing cave trolls that can't jam a big pointy metal stick through some mythical chain mail, giant elephants (sorry, mean Olyphants, guess they're somehow related to Timothy), is ridiculous because of a ghost army not being used more?

Hell there's even a bit of feminism thrown in, "I am no man!" stab your face and make it implode because when he meant man he meant mankind, but somehow a woman gets to kick that right in the balls.

You obviously haven't read the books. Or if you did, they went so far above your head you couldn't hear the whooshing sound.