Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

This has probably been spoken about ad nauseum on the board, but as I'm new here, I thought I would start a new thread. This way, as people respond with specific points, I can follow up with more questions and get a better understanding of what people liked about the movies.

Because I'm not going to lie. I hated the movies. I can't stand them, and it baffles me why anyone would enjoy them. Perhaps if you've never read the books, you can watch the movies in a campy sort of way, but if you loved the books, I can't understand how you could tolerate the films.

Let me be clear. Everyone has the right to like whatever they like. I enjoy plenty of movies that are "bad." The recent G.I. Joe films, for example, or most of Roland Emmerich's movies. They are terrible from a storytelling perspective, but that's part of the fun for me. If you enjoy something, then you enjoy it. You don't need to defend that.

If you enjoy the movies in that 'they're so bad they're good' way, then i can get that. but if you really think the movies are masterpieces. if you think Peter Jackson is a genius and you fully believe that Return Of The King deserved the Best Picture Oscar, then you are the person I really want to hear from.

So, if you loved the LOTR trilogy, did you love it in an ironic sort of way, or did you really love it? If you think they are great films, please tell me why they are great.

This is a genuine request. I find it fascinating how polarizing creative works can be. It is very interesting to me that one person can love something while another person can hate it. And that's especially true in a situation like this, where we can assume that almost all of us here love the original books, yet our opinions differ so greatly about the films.

For those of you who respond, thanks for your time.

I fear I have nothing to add here as my view of the films, all of them is definitely on the side of crabbit.

They captured this sense of adventure that speaks to me. There were a lot of decisions they made in adapting the books that I flat out disagree with, but I'm still fond of the movie on its own merits. When taken as blockbuster films (which admittedly they shouldn't have been in the first place but I digress) they were quite good. Visually it was gorgeous.

I love everything about LOTR they are my favourite films ever. For me they are perfection even with the tiny niggles. I give them 100%. The cinematography, music, casting, costumes, everything gorgeous. For me its Middle Earth come to life, nuff said.

I hate the Hobbit films btw. REALLY hate them They are travesties of the worst kind and it makes me really angry.

just watch the whole movie focusing on legolas, not because he's deadly handsome (which he is) but because it's super fun  i probably have a better and more thoughtful response but this was the first thing that popped into my head.

also. now i love that i can watch lotr and legolas and frodo are about my age in fotr..

yeah Legolas is cool in LOTR   

I about 70% love LotR. I will never forgive them for what they did to Denethor, for instance, or what has been referred to here as the magic toilet bowl green scrubbing dead army bubbles. Among other things that are less annoying.

Despite all this the movies came closer to capturing the atmosphere of middle earth than any other movies thus far, and for that I'm grateful. It's like once you've shouted about something that royally pisses you off, stomped around and thrown things and gotten it all out, then you can accept what you've been given and appreciate some of the nicer things.

I thought the depiction of Hobbiton and especially Bag End was spot on (no, the grass still doesn't bother me) and if they had left out the Merry and Pippin tomfoolery it would have been as good a depiction of the book as we could reasonably hope for.

Minas Tirith was another perfect set, and I can suspend my annoyance out how they mucked up the story long enough to appreciate that amazing gift we were given.

There were even a few things not in the book that were quite nicely done in the movie: the Pippin's Song sequence was incredibly poignant, though I could have done without the heavy handed symbolism of the tomato spurting at the end of it. And Gandalf's little speech about "a far green country under a swift sunrise" was perfect.

The music and costumes were largely spot on, it was only the script and occasional PJ excesses that mangled things.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I fear I have nothing to add here as my view of the films, all of them is definitely on the side of crabbit.

I have almost nothing. There are some changes that were necessary due to the constraints of time, but I feel these could have been handled better. Also, PJ wasted time with other scenes/elements.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:They captured this sense of adventure that speaks to me. There were a lot of decisions they made in adapting the books that I flat out disagree with, but I'm still fond of the movie on its own merits. When taken as blockbuster films (which admittedly they shouldn't have been in the first place but I digress) they were quite good. Visually it was gorgeous.

I agree that the one thing Peter Jackson undeniably got right was the look of the film, in particular the characters and cities. But looking good doesn't make it a good movie.

Do you have any specific things you like about the movie's merits besides the look?

Mrs Figg wrote:I love everything about LOTR they are my favourite films ever. For me they are perfection even with the tiny niggles. I give them 100%. The cinematography, music, casting, costumes, everything gorgeous. For me its Middle Earth come to life, nuff said.

I hate the Hobbit films btw. REALLY hate them They are travesties of the worst kind and it makes me really angry.

Everything? Did you like evil Farimir? Did you like Liv Tyler? Did you like all the times in the Two Towers that characters stopped in the middle of battle, looked across the battlefield, and saw something important happening or communicated with someone in the distance? Did you like the 100+ closeups of characters crying?

And you hate the Hobbit? I'm really curious about this. What is so different about the two trilogies, that you love the one and hate the other? Maybe if you tell me what you don't like about the Hobbit that will help me understand what you like about the LOTR.

Thanks for the response.

Norc wrote:just watch the whole movie focusing on legolas, not because he's deadly handsome (which he is) but because it's super fun  i probably have a better and more thoughtful response but this was the first thing that popped into my head.

I might try that, but I find much of his banter with Gimli tiresome, plus that means I have to watch him jump onto a running horse by grabbing its reins and going under its torso and up the other side. And let's not forget him surfing down the stairs.

Plus he's in this scene: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1203

thegooddoctor wrote:I might try that, but I find much of his banter with Gimli tiresome, plus that means I have to watch him jump onto a running horse by grabbing its reins and going under its torso and up the other side. And let's not forget him surfing down the stairs.

Or dispatching a 50-foot elephant all by himself.

halfwise wrote:I about 70% love LotR.  I will never forgive them for what they did to Denethor, for instance, or what has been referred to here as the magic toilet bowl green scrubbing dead army bubbles.  Among other things that are less annoying.

Despite all this the movies came closer to capturing the atmosphere of middle earth than any other movies thus far, and for that I'm grateful.  It's like once you've shouted about something that royally pisses you off, stomped around and thrown things and gotten it all out, then you can accept what you've been given and appreciate some of the nicer things.

I thought the depiction of Hobbiton and especially Bag End was spot on (no, the grass still doesn't bother me) and if they had left out the Merry and Pippin tomfoolery it would have been as good a depiction of the book as we could reasonably hope for.

Minas Tirith was another perfect set, and I can suspend my annoyance out how they mucked up the story long enough to appreciate that amazing gift we were given.

There were even a few things not in the book that were quite nicely done in the movie: the Pippin's Song sequence was incredibly poignant, though I could have done without the heavy handed symbolism of the tomato spurting at the end of it.  And Gandalf's little speech about "a far green country under a swift sunrise" was perfect.

The music and costumes were largely spot on, it was only the script and occasional PJ excesses that mangled things.

I agree about the sets. Almost all of them were well realized. I agree that what's good about the movie is it provides a nice picture that we can use when we're imagining the story from the books.

Sadly, I found that the way he screwed up the characters and story ruined the movies for me.

Speaking of Peter Jackson's excesses, did you know that in the three movies, there are 138 closeups of people (or hobbits) crying in slow motion?

What I loved about LOTR was that it Always kept Frodo (and Sam) at the emotional heart of the films, no matter if they were off screen for obvious reasons We Always had Frodos journey as the most important journey, Aragorn didnt swamp everything as Thorin does in The Hobbit. I never once thought that Aragorn or Gandalf took away Frodos importance. Bilbo in The Hobbit however is rarely present, he is totally sidelined and we never really get any progression or story arc even though we are two thirds the way in.
So LOTR gave due respect to the main characters, people can quibble about slight changes due to acting styles or slightly gentler or more introverse characteristics, but Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books. (apart from Faramir) some are improvements like Theoden and Boromir, but overall the characters are respected and not twisted and warped as in TH.

2003's best picture Oscar should have gone to Lost in Translation or Mystic River. Just sayin'. (I lean more towards Lost in Translation.)

Mrs Figg wrote:So LOTR gave due respect to the main characters, people can quibble about slight changes due to acting styles or slightly gentler or more introverse characteristics, but Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books. (apart from Faramir) some are improvements like Theoden and Boromir, but overall the characters are respected and not twisted and warped as in TH.

The changes from the book to the movie are not mere quibbles. Having the movie take away every heroic deed Frodo does in the book is not a mere quibble—that's simply not a correct statement. The movie barely even pays lip service to the book character, and that's putting it generously.

And how are Theoden and Boromir improvements? Theoden, in particular, is a step down.

Mrs Figg wrote:What I loved about LOTR was that it Always kept Frodo (and Sam) at the emotional heart of the films, no matter if they were off screen for obvious reasons We Always had Frodos journey as the most important journey, Aragorn didnt swamp everything as Thorin does in The Hobbit. I never once thought that Aragorn or Gandalf took away Frodos importance. Bilbo in The Hobbit however is rarely present, he is totally sidelined and we never really get any progression or story arc even though we are two thirds the way in.
So LOTR gave due respect to the main characters, people can quibble about slight changes due to acting styles or slightly gentler or more introverse characteristics, but Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books. (apart from Faramir) some are improvements like Theoden and Boromir, but overall the characters are respected and not twisted and warped as in TH.

That's an interesting comparison. You're right, the LOTR trilogy does keep Frodo and Sam at the heart. And although it seems rather obvious that it has to be that way, I could have seen a bunch of movie executives deciding that Aragorn needs to be the MAIN character and changing things even more than they were.

I really hate the way Bilbo is portrayed in the Unexpected Journey. I have just started my rewatch of that movie, and I'm just over 30 mins in. They get Bilbo all wrong. I'm not even sure why this Bilbo ever would have started this adventure.

But I have to disagree about the majority of characters in LOTR. Peter Jackson gets most of them wrong. Elrond is a huge d**k. Theoden is also a huge d**k much of the time. Anytime Peter Jackson needs an obstacle in a scene, he just turns a character into a d**k. It even happens to Gandalf and Galadrial at certain times. Pippen and Merry are mostly buffoons, Gimli is never more than comic relief, and Liv Tyler is super annoying. And I hate the way Eowyn gets changed from an strong, brave, fiercely independent character to a pining love interest for Aragorn who needs a man to rescue her, even though she's supposed to be the heroine who killed the witch-king. It's the worst kind of misogyny.

thegooddoctor wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:I love everything about LOTR they are my favourite films ever. For me they are perfection even with the tiny niggles. I give them 100%. The cinematography, music, casting, costumes, everything gorgeous. For me its Middle Earth come to life, nuff said.

I hate the Hobbit films btw. REALLY hate them They are travesties of the worst kind and it makes me really angry.

Everything? Did you like evil Farimir? Did you like Liv Tyler? Did you like all the times in the Two Towers that characters stopped in the middle of battle, looked across the battlefield, and saw something important happening or communicated with someone in the distance? Did you like the 100+ closeups of characters crying?

And you hate the Hobbit? I'm really curious about this. What is so different about the two trilogies, that you love the one and hate the other? Maybe if you tell me what you don't like about the Hobbit that will help me understand what you like about the LOTR.

Thanks for the response.

Love love Liv Tyler she was wonderful, perfect Elven lady.    ok Faramir was crappy, but David Wenham was such a hearfelt actor that I kind of forgive him. No idea what you mean by the Two Towers battle thing, no idea at all.    characters crying, nope didnt mind that either.

Do I really need to tell you whats different between the two trilogies? the quality of LOTR is light years ahead in every way. TH is merely a shallow glossy video game, made for people with no real love of Tolkien but who are uncritical Jackson fans. Even though I love LOTR I am aware of its faults but the good for me far outweighs the bad. TH just bored me and it seemed derivatory stale and it ruins Bilbos character arc, there isnt one. Its bloated full of ridiculous Azog, Necromancer rubbish, laws of physics are suspended, no one gets hurt, the Dwarves are vulgar idiots (apart from Balin), its just cheesy, cheap and utterly tedious.

Radaghast wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:So LOTR gave due respect to the main characters, people can quibble about slight changes due to acting styles or slightly gentler or more introverse characteristics, but Frodo and the others are pretty true to the books. (apart from Faramir) some are improvements like Theoden and Boromir, but overall the characters are respected and not twisted and warped as in TH.

The changes from the book to the movie are not mere quibbles. Having the movie take away every heroic deed Frodo does in the book is not a mere quibble—that's simply not a correct statement. The movie barely even pays lip service to the book character, and that's putting it generously.

And how are Theoden and Boromir improvements? Theoden, in particular, is a step down.

in your opinion. In mine its a step up.

Would you both care to elaborate?

Mrs Figg wrote:

Radaghast wrote:And how are Theoden and Boromir improvements? Theoden, in particular, is a step down.

in your opinion. In mine its a step up.

How is he a step up?

bungobaggins wrote:Would you both care to elaborate?

About Theoden?

Radaghast wrote:

bungobaggins wrote:Would you both care to elaborate?

About Theoden?

Yes. I am interested. Why does Figgy see it as a step up and Raddy see it as a step down?

I see it as a step down because Theoden shows bitterness about Gondor. "I don't want to help them because they didn't help us" or some such rot. It's a cheap ploy to create drama by turning one of the characters into (as the Doc said) a d**k.