Tell Me Why You Liked The LOTR Movies

The Gooddoctor wrote:

"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"

I agree with almost all of your points Gooddoctor. The scenery and the look of the sets were very nice for the most part.
The casting was good for the most part. Costumes were good. Special effects while far from perfect were not an issue at all with my disappointment. They were far better than what I expected.

As far as the script goes in my opinion it was good when it stayed close to the books, but as you point out, ALL TOO OFTEN that was not the case and PJ  inserted his weak diminishing revisions into the story and upon the characters, and a more grave error the FEEL and SPIRIT of the original story was disregarded and warped.
His ill conceived and unnecessary rewriting of the characters made them much weaker than the ones that I grew to love from the books.

Denathor, Faramir, Galadriel, Eowyn and Treebeard  especially in my view, were transformed or mutated rather into barely recognizable forms.

Elrond, was greatly diminished to look like a cold heartless scary prick. Theoden was very poorly done a lot of the time.
 Legolas turned into some sort of super elf surfer slayer gymnast hunk of clay.
Gimli, Merry and Pippen were just used in weak ways for an attempt at comic relief.  
Aragorn was ok a lot of the time but then PJ needed to F him up too, I suppose in making his character more "believable" or some such crappola.  

A major change and mistake in my sensibilities was the omission of JRR's underlying feel of the good forces in middle earth, good magic. PJ wasn't shy to accentuate the Black magic side of that coin, but chose to all but omit the good power.
Tainting Galadriel and Elrond, Faramir into creeps
Making Treebeard look like a silly witless idiot that even the foolish halfwits Merry and Pippen  could trick into become involved at Isenguard  
I hated what PJ did to Eowyn who in the books was one of my very favorite characters. They made her weak and boring. I remember the first time I read RotK arguably the best scene was when she disembodied the Captain of the wraiths to protect Theoden. In the film this climactic scene was a shadow of the book... what a disappointment she was across the board.  

The ringwraiths were so poorly done as to be laughable. If they are so formidable and deadly how in Erus middle earth did those silly little hobbits get away from them in the shire in FotR? Just duck behind this little skinny tree and the big scary wraiths will just have no idea where you went even though they were right on top of them a moment ago      Pathetic

I could go on and on with specific points and omissions that cause me to find very little joy in this attempt to bring LotR to film...
I own all the extended versions of the movies and every few years I watch them. Last year after seeing TH I tried to watch them again and more than ever they bugged me. We found ourselves just turning the sound off and just half watched the thing.

I looked forward to these films for years and they are so disappointing to me. FotR started well enough but went down hill drastically before it was half over, TT was just bad for the most part,RotK had a few decent moments.
I find I like them less and less with each new viewing.

As far as The Hobbit movies go... TH 1 was just Horrendous, and TH2 is just Horrific & Laughable .  

I find PJs movies cause far far too much grief and very little pleasure for me  

Ikes I find that I didn't even comment on the bad treatment of poor Frodo in LotR. As perhaps you can guess from my subtle criticisms so far... it was not to my liking either and he was weakened and transformed into a shadow as well. I suppose I could just give a blanket statement that I was shocked and appalled by the characters I saw on the screen. Pretty much everyone was diminished so much that by the end of each film I felt ill and angry and hurt and ripped off.    Coven you suck and the more I think about it the more crabit I feel... (I think that is the first time I have used that term)

before mrs. figg started trolling- Gooddoctor

Oh I wouldnt worry about that, she was mainly trolling me and I deserve it!   

Regards the end of FotR- moving Boromirs death and the fight to the end of FotR is a sound and pretty obvious thing to do in an adaptation.
But there was no need to for Frodo to be aware of it happening- he should have been gone by then to the boats.

By giving him the scene with Aragorn it takes way a big character thing for Aragorn- the belief he has royally screwed everything up, something he regrets until after the return of Gandalf (weirdly PJ has Gandalf say to Aragorn 'do not regret your decision to leave Frodo' which is weird as we have seen no hint he regretted doing so in the film and he sent Frodo off with his blessing, so why would he regret it in the film? It doesn't make sense.   

I agree with the rest of your assessment on the character treatment.

Maybe next time you steal yourself to watch the films you should try my purist edits instead- still not right but  a lot less painful.

"the more I think about it the more crabit I feel... (I think that is the first time I have used that term)"

Crabbit is infectious, but a power for good  

thegooddoctor wrote:well, before mrs. figg started trolling, i thought we were having an interesting discussion.

Figgs doesn't troll. None of us do. We may all have disagreements with one another from time to time but I like to think we're all a close knit community and won't take it personally.

Recoveryanonymous wrote:

thegooddoctor wrote:well, before mrs. figg started trolling, i thought we were having an interesting discussion.

Figgs doesn't troll. None of us do. We may all have disagreements with one another from time to time but I like to think we're all a close knit community and won't take it personally.

thanks RA for the support.   

Dear GoodDoctor
Me Trolling? bloody cheeky! I have singlehandedly defended my beloved films from all comers, and from every angle, and when its been at least 4 against one, so its a bit rich being called a troll.    You asked the fucking question 'why do you love LOTR' and so I told you.  

Hey GD - I appreciate that you brought up the point that Frodo had to run to protect the ring: it was something I was planning to point out but never got around to it. Thought it was pretty obvious both from the logic and from the actor's playing of it.

I think your detailed scene analysis puts you on par with Petty, who while re-editing the films has seen the flaws and strengths deeper than any of us, I hazard.

As for perceived going off topic or frivolous remarks, that's actually normal and even approved here, so long as it's done in an entertaining or intellectually stimulating fashion.  Our conversations tend to wander like a normal conversation, don't expect things to stay rigidly academic here.  Just the way we roll.

I’ve just came across this site recently and I really enjoy reading all your comments. Therefore I will try to overcome the language barriers and add some of my thoughts.

The question why people who love Tolkien also like the LOTR movies is a very interesting one for me. I remember, when I walked out of the cinema after seeing FOTR  I was kind of blown away by the visual looks. I loved the sets, the costumes, everything. It felt like PJ has opend a window to Middle Earth for me. This very feeling made me ignore everything that was wrong. I was enchanted by the movie aesthetics and I think some people, maybe the lucky ones, never lost that kind of enchantment.

Today, I can hardly watch the movies anymore. I hate what PJ has done to my beloved books. I do not understand how I ever considerd them to be good. Maybe I could forgive him the changings of the story, maybe I could forgive him all the useless addings but what I ‘ll never forgive him is altering und ruining almost every important character and by doing this, ruining the heart and the soul of the book. The discussion here about Frodo nails it. In my opinion there’s not one personality that he left undamaged. Gandalf, Aragron, Frodo, Elrond, Treebeard, Merry, Pippin  one could add this list down to Butterbur. Sometimes I wonder, if PJ got one single character right. That makes me so sad, because I cannot see a reason for doing it. It was not necessary at all. Tolkien created iconic characters and they acted and behaved the way they did in the books for very good reasons.
PJ managed to capture the spirit of Middle Earth  by creating incredible looks and visuals.
But with all of the changes he destroyed it at the same time.

Yet, obviously there must be something about those films, that make us discuss them. At least the are worth discussing them. I’ll bet, we won’t talk about TH ten years from now.

Hey, welcome Rhiannon! Glad to have you among us. You may want to go to the welcome and introductions thread in the off-topic section (though no need to answer all the suggest questions). You'll get a royal welcome.

Bluebottle wrote:Elijah comes in for some beating, doesn't he.

I feel he deserves a sound beating. Or at least a good, hard slap in the face   

thegooddoctor wrote:then we get this scene where merry and pippin see frodo and realize he's leaving, just as the orcs arrive. frodo now must make the choice between staying to fight with his friends or continuing the journey on his own. some of you have said this makes frodo cowardly. others that it makes him brave. in fact, i think it does neither. because in fact, there really is no choice there.

The choice here was made by Peej and his decision to film this pointless scene in the first place. I understand that the film needed a climax, but I don't see how this scene adds to it. I find it utterly unnecessary.

And, sure, keeping the Ring out of enemy hands was important, but the immediacy of his friends being in danger would have weighed too much on Frodo, imho.

2. my real problem with that scene is that the action is so poorly choreographed. aragorn charges into a wall of orcs. every time the scene cuts away from him, he's about to be overwhelmed. then it cuts back to him, and he's retreated a bit so that he couldn't be surrounded. there's even one point where he's on the ground and surrounded. cut away, and when it cuts back he's back on his feet somehow. it's so awful. those couple of shots from overhead, when we see the mass of orcs about to surround him, and yet somehow they don't manage to, thanks to the magic of editing. would it have been so hard to stage this more realistically, where the orcs come charging in a few at a time??? it makes me cringe every time i watch this scene.

and how is it the entire army of orcs suddenly materialized right where frodo and aragorn happen to be without any other warning. what about legolas. in other scenes he can sense orcs from miles away. yet the party can be surprised by an entire force of orcs without legolas noticing and shouting a warning?

We are in full agreement here and you put it better than I have thus far (in the Movie Aesthetics thread, I commented on the Death of Boromir scene). Through the trickery of editing, the flaws aren't immediately noticeable but upon repeated examination you can't help but notice them (generally speaking).

Regards the end of FotR the difference for me is huge and irreconcilable- book Frodo we are shown over and over is motivated by the need to keep those he cares for out of danger- its behind his decision to take the Ring to Rivendell, its true in the barrow where we see him with a clear choice between 'run away' and 'risk all saving friends' and he chooses the latter, its true in the conversation with Glorfindel when he wont run and leave his friends in danger, and its true when he decides to leave at the end of FotR and its still true at the very end of the book when he says the Shire was saved but not for him. A defining trait of Frodo is his self sacrifice, even if it means putting himself in danger in order to prevent danger from coming to others.

PJ throws that out- his Frodo runs away leaving his friends in certain danger and seeming imminent death. It could not be more fundamentally against his character- had that happened to book Frodo he would not have left, he would have put the Ring on and set about trying to rescue people from orcs instead.
But he would never have allowed his friends and family to sacrifice themselves for him. He wont even let Sam do that and so tries to leave without him.

Like the later scene where he sends Sam away in favour of Gollum I find the character of Frodo not just altered from book, but utterly altered to the point he is no longer recognisably the same character with the same personality traits.

halfwise wrote:Hey, welcome  Rhiannon!  Glad to have you among us.  You may want to go to the welcome and introductions thread in the off-topic section (though no need to answer all the suggest questions).  You'll get a royal welcome.

Seconded!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:PJ throws that out- his Frodo runs away leaving his friends in certain danger and seeming imminent death. It could not be more fundamentally against his character- had that happened to book Frodo he would not have left, he would have put the Ring on and set about trying to rescue people from orcs instead.
But he would never have allowed his friends and family to sacrifice themselves for him. He wont even let Sam do that and so tries to leave without him.

On the flip side, I don't think Merry and Pippin would be so willing to let Frodo go off alone either, considering what they told him in "A Conspiracy Unmasked". But, of course, Peej seems to care fuck all about the book.

Good point Rhaddy, yeah it doesnt do their characters any favours either.

And I meant to say hello Rhiannon but was to busy having a crabbit rant!

Welcome to Forumshire!  

I am sorry you all cant enjoy the LOTR, you are missing out on some magical and wonderful films, its your loss I guess.

The book is leagues better, so no loss on my part

Well, personally I'd say the book was magical and wonderful, the films are shoddy and badly written. If I dont watch shoddy badly written films I dont feel like I am missing out on anything.

What does make me crabbit is the source is so much better and the films need not have been shoddy and badly written- its the adaptation they never made but should have I miss.

I try to think a bit like that as well Figg.

So while I might have my own problems wtih the films I don't begrudge you liking them at all.

Actually, I'm glad you get that sort of enjoyment out of them.  

Bluebottle wrote:I try to think a bit like that as well Figg.

So while I might have my own problems wtih the films I don't begrudge you liking them at all.

Actually, I'm glad you get that sort of enjoyment out of them.  

Its funny but I think most of the Fyordlandians on the forum tend to think the same way as I do about LOTR. We can be swept up in the epic High Romance of it all, while not ignoring the faults of the film. I cant speak for everyone but thats the impression I get.

Weell, maybe. I might be a bit less concilatory than the other Fjordlandians however. I think I struggle to get through RotK to this day, but in hindsight I'm surprisingly positive about Fellowship.

I will admit I felt a small tinge of jealousy when Norc went to the Hobbit premier and enjoyed it. I kind of wish I could have done that as well.

It certainly would be nice to be able to enjoy TH, and I did go expecting to at least enjoy the ride, I enjoyed AUJ a lot more than DOS. Maybe because a tiny fraction of it was actually remotely similar to the book. DOS was just wtf from start to finish.

[quote="Mrs Figg"]

Recoveryanonymous wrote:

thanks RA for the support.   

Dear GoodDoctor
Me Trolling? bloody cheeky! I have singlehandedly defended my beloved films from all comers, and from every angle, and when its been at least 4 against one, so its a bit rich being called a troll.    You asked the fucking question 'why do you love LOTR' and so I told you.  

Mrs. Figg,

I didn't mean to be offensive. My definition of trolling is when a person doesn't engage in the conversation, but instead is answering in order to get a rise out of others. in the beginning of this thread you were giving constructive answers, such as, 'i admit there are some flaws, but for me the things i love outweigh them,' but by the middle, where i stepped back into the conversation, you were just giving simple responses that amounted to "everything is perfect and nothing any of you are saying makes sense." hence, my trolling comment. and i'm new to the board, so i don't know the protocols, but i kind of figured you meant it in good fun, so i wasn't trying to provoke you. but i still think you were trolling, whether in jest or not.

I know that a lot of people have jumped into the thread and it's heavily focused on the negative now, but i'm still interested in what the pro movie people have to say. and i'd like Mrs. Figg to go back and actually respond to the specific questions that were asked of her. How do you respond to all the specific instances of Frodo's cowardice and passiveness that specifically contradict the book? Do they not affect how you view his character? Well, obviously not, you've made that clear. But what are some specific instances of movie Frodo that you love? What are all of us missing?

I think I have an idea of why the movies are still so popular, besides the obvious things about the appearance and what not. I think a few elements carry it through: the charisma of the main actors, specifically Viggo Mortensen and Ian Mckellen and Orlando Bloom (though personally I never liked Bloom), and the relationship between Sam and Frodo and Gollum. So even though, as has been rightly pointed out, the characters have been severely changed from the books, they still resonate with people because of the actors. People love those performances, and people love the character of Sam, and they love to hate Gollum. You take all that, and you add in the stellar art direction and scenery (and even the bad action scenes aren't any worse than so many other hollywood blockbusters) and combine it all together and you've got blockbuster movies and oscars. It makes me sad, but that's the way it is I guess.

And yes, I wish I could ignore all the problems and love the movies too, but sadly, there's just too many problems.

The "pro" of LOTRs for me is "what could be, or should have been".

Pettytyrant101 wrote:By giving him the scene with Aragorn it takes way a big character thing for Aragorn- the belief he has royally screwed everything up, something he regrets until after the return of Gandalf (weirdly PJ has Gandalf say to Aragorn 'do not regret your decision to leave Frodo' which is weird as we have seen no hint he regretted doing so in the film and he sent Frodo off with his blessing, so why would he regret it in the film? It doesn't make sense.  

And if he was going to do this, why did he also have to have the scene with Merry & Pippin? Peej essentially screws up twice in one sequence. There is absolutely no reason (that I can discern) to depart from the book, even once, let alone twice.

thegooddoctor wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

Recoveryanonymous wrote:

thanks RA for the support.   

Dear GoodDoctor
Me Trolling? bloody cheeky! I have singlehandedly defended my beloved films from all comers, and from every angle, and when its been at least 4 against one, so its a bit rich being called a troll.    You asked the fucking question 'why do you love LOTR' and so I told you.  

Mrs. Figg,

I didn't mean to be offensive. My definition of trolling is when a person doesn't engage in the conversation, but instead is answering in order to get a rise out of others. in the beginning of this thread you were giving constructive answers, such as, 'i admit there are some flaws, but for me the things i love outweigh them,' but by the middle, where i stepped back into the conversation, you were just giving simple responses that amounted to "everything is perfect and nothing any of you are saying makes sense." hence, my trolling comment. and i'm new to the board, so i don't know the protocols, but i kind of figured you meant it in good fun, so i wasn't trying to provoke you. but i still think you were trolling, whether in jest or not.

I know that a lot of people have jumped into the thread and it's heavily focused on the negative now, but i'm still interested in what the pro movie people have to say. and i'd like Mrs. Figg to go back and actually respond to the specific questions that were asked of her. How do you respond to all the specific instances of Frodo's cowardice and passiveness that specifically contradict the book? Do they not affect how you view his character? Well, obviously not, you've made that clear. But what are some specific instances of movie Frodo that you love? What are all of us missing?

I think I have an idea of why the movies are still so popular, besides the obvious things about the appearance and what not. I think a few elements carry it through: the charisma of the main actors, specifically Viggo Mortensen and Ian Mckellen and Orlando Bloom (though personally I never liked Bloom), and the relationship between Sam and Frodo and Gollum. So even though, as has been rightly pointed out, the characters have been severely changed from the books, they still resonate with people because of the actors. People love those performances, and people love the character of Sam, and they love to hate Gollum. You take all that, and you add in the stellar art direction and scenery (and even the bad action scenes aren't any worse than so many other hollywood blockbusters) and combine it all together and you've got blockbuster movies and oscars. It makes me sad, but that's the way it is I guess.

And yes, I wish I could ignore all the problems and love the movies too, but sadly, there's just too many problems.

fair enough, here you go, you obviously didnt read this, my theory why Frodo is NOT a coward.

''On the other hand Frodo in LOTR films retains his innocence until the very last minute with Gollum, and then its not a deliberate stabbing, but a desperate struggle which ends in tragedy for both of them. I have heard a lot of people moaning Frodo is a wimp, but I thought Frodo was an innocent gentle creature lost in the horror of Mordor. If he had been more assertive or aggressive or had defended himself as Bilbo does with a sword, for me it would have taken away the angelic part of Frodo. For me Frodo symbolizes the Light of Earendils Star made flesh, he IS the Light travelling into the Dark. His untainted soul is only tested to the limits of endurance at the End of All Things at the Crack of Doom. The power of the Ring blots out his light and he falls into darkness.''