Lord of the Rings- The Most Overated Movie ever??

Sorry only just stumbled on this thread, yes the first LOTR film is long and at times does appear dragged out but then the books are the same it doesnt make them any less great as a trilogy IMO . Much as with the books the films need to be seen as a complete set, the first does much scene setting and so on. IMHO I think Jackson did an excellent job, I'm not sure many other directors would have done it justice
 
I'm of the age where these books were normally part of the curriculum, so it was quite interesting to see them in film format after all these years, and having everything set down in just imagination.

They were good films, in regarRAB to authenticity, scenery, characters etc - but they are long, but so were the books. I watched them all, and enjoyed them, but I doubt I'd watch them again.

Why didn't they make The Hobbit first? as a set of four films? We did get some flashbacks to the cave adventures, but I feel a bit robbed not seeing it as a full film.
 
Lord of the rings are horribly over rated. The main reason for this is that the characters are shallow except for gollum. He is the only interesting person.

Anyone who has read the books will surely see that alot of it is just detailed descriptions. :yawn:

I really rate Peter Jackson as a director. It would have been nice to see Aragon fighting Sauron like in the book.
 
What is everyones problem with its length?

Why is 2hours 45 minutes too long for a film? Are people frightened of being utterly engrossed in a story now..... this 1 hour 30 mins things is utter rubbish, yuo can never GET INTO a film as well.

Most of my favourite films are way over the two hour mark anyway, people are just too lazy to stay still and concentrate nowadays.
 
Personally I think Star Wars is slightly more overrated.

But hey I don't complain, people like it, they like it. Who am I to tell them otherwise.
 
The LoTR movies are simply awe inspiring!! They are absolutely fantastic!! I loved them!

I purposely read the books before watching the movie, and agree they do add to the enjoyment and understanding of the movies.

I can't believe people were not impressed by the films!!!!
 
Good point. Everyone is allwoed their own opinion, but blaring something ignorantly from the rooftops isnt going to make you look particuarly clever... ;)
 
And I am one of them, they are truly brilliant, but I think you have to like fantasy films to really appreciate them, and, of course if you have read the books and enjoyed them, that makes a difference. They are my favourite books and films ever.
 
Much like the original poster I've tried many times to watch these films. I've seen most of the first 2 now and still don't see why everyone raves about them.

Yes, technically (ie: special effects wise) it's very well done but I just can't get interested in the story or characters - and it goes on forever!! (and I've no problem watching a 3 hr film if it's worth watching - Gandhi for example).

Glad it's not just me by the sound of it tho :)
 
I read the books of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, consistently voted as the greatest books ever written, next to the bible, years ago, including The Hobbit and The Silmarillion- Professor Tolkien's first and last book of the history and peoples of Middle Earth.

If you do not like the easy pace of the filmed version, I very much doubt whether you would be able to understand or take in the long and deliberate pace of the chronology and detailed mythology of Middle Earth which the great man wrote very much like a historical thesis and factual documentary of events in his imaginary world.

It is no surprise to me that most people who do like appreciate the films have never read the books and even if they did, or at least try to, they would clearly not understand anything contain in them.

It is simply too complicated to grasp, and this is not surprising, giving the fact that that it took Tolkien about 12 years to finish the essential trilogy on which the films were based.

Peter Jackson did the best that anyone could humanly do to bring these books to life on the cinema screens, hence the reward with Oscars across the board. Hollywood bigwigs recognised the monumental tasks involed in the filming process and the time and efforts required and rewarded him accordingly at the end of the trilogy.

If anyone even struggles with these, there is simply no hope to expect that they would fare better with the really long books.

I bought the extended versions of the DVRAB, nothing else would possibly do.

In my opinion, the movies were not even long enough and I thoroughly enjoyed the extras crammed in the DVRAB.

Now I can hardly wait for Peter Jackson to film The Hobbit. What a treat awaits us (well the "us" that love the History of Middle Earth).
 
To you Iain them, the Grand Canyon is just a hole in the ground, then! :rolleyes:

Surely with a film its as much about the journey, as the destination!
 
As a fan of Tolkien's books (though I prefer The Silmarillion to LOTR) I thoroughly enjoyed the films and would have been happy if they'd been longer still. I thought they were very well made and the acting was excellent. (The only actor I disliked was Hugo Weaving as Elrond. I thought he was too theatrical.) My main complaints about the film would be about their departures from the books. Some of the changes worked well--I particularly liked the way the story of Arwen and Aragorn was handled--but some really bugged me. I could have done without the long action sequences, especially as they contained some of the poorer bits of CGI. And some of the added or altered dialogue was far too modern. "Take cover" - ugh. SounRAB American to me. Tolkien would be turning in his grave. ;)

I can certainly see why LOTR is not for everyone. My sister walked out of the cinema half way through the first film. If she'd asked me first, I would have told her not to go, as I know it's not her sort of thing at all. Still, I know a lot of people who hadn't read the books did enjoy the films.
 
Back
Top