LOTR overrated

On recent watchings i realised LotR really isn't all that different compared to The Hobbit in terms of corny dialogue or scenes. I mean i obviously still believe LotR are the better movies here overall (and they'll remain one of my favorite movies forever), but the quality gap between the 2 trilogies isn't really as big as i originally thought.

Sure, The Hobbit has lots of flaws, but i started noticing a lot of scenes in LotR that would've most likely been shitposted about here 24/7 aswell if the movies came out today. I'm not talking about the obvious stuff like the Legolas shield surfing scene or whatever, it's mainly the dialogue i'm talking about.

Attached: pleaseno.jpg (550x529, 66.06K)

Kill yourself faggot, revisionist history.

If you can't notice that some of Jackson's questionable direction and writing in the hobbit is a copypaste of his direction and writing from lort then idk what to say fam.

Fellowship is still great

Two Towers sucked and Return of The King is a mixed bag.

Yeah you still get some Jackson spiel here and there but it's mostly contained to the third movie. Christopher Lee was one of the big reasons why that is. See now Lee was the ultra fanboy for Tolkien, having wanted to play Gandalf for decades and he really did not take any shit from Jackson when things weren't faithful. It led to one of my favorite anecdotes where Jackson was trying to explain to Lee how he wanted to reacted to being stabbed in the back. Lee then calmly explained to him that he knew exactly how a man sounded when a knife went through his back, after all he had been in the Special Operations Executive during WW2.

Attached: d10efb4fa52a99487f48cd5f4088e0a7.png (922x241, 178.95K)

That anecdotes is great…too bad they cut Saruman from the theatrical cut of ROTK when they could have just cut some other stuff.

Saruman would be pointless in the third movie. The director's cuts only work if you read the books first.

All the extra scenes for the extended edition are literal trash, discarded in the original run because of low quality. They even look like the film itself lacks two or three passes of polish and postprocessing.

But the fans of the LOTR movies adore them. Why? Because it's more runtime. Get this: those who like the movies take their enjoyment from their extreme length, no more, no less. It sounds ridiculous, but idol starved minds will throw themselves at the first thing they can worship. They love that runtime as they do their life, in fact the extended edition gave them a longer life.

Which is the most important and successful one.

I'll admit I'm as much of a fanboy of Lee as he was of Tolkien. The guy really had a full life: being the step-cousin to Ian Flemming, his mother being a famous beauty, fighting in the Winter War, member of the LRDG, having to ask the King of Sweden for permission to marry his wife, being big guy (6ft5"), and being a damn good swordsman.

Not enough hobbit cleavage to be the most important.

The extended versions of TTT and ROTK are seriously dogshit

You're seriously dogshit!

Attached: Maisie-Williams-blue-hair.jpg (800x499, 75.06K)


Whom do you serve?

No you retard because LOTR is more faithful to the book than the Hobit. Jesus this is not rocket science.

No fuck off, its not "inspired by" its based on the books.

Attached: share-the-load.gif (640x253, 5.2M)

1. Readers of the book despise LOTR as a bombastic flick for american retards. All the lore goes out the window and what you get in exchange is meme music
2. They're subpar adaptations with good photography. The hobbit by comparison is a terrible adaptation with garish CGI.

Nobodies standards are that high even from hardcore Tolkien fans. You are being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian the Hobit was rightfully bashed. LOTR was faithful enough by most peoples standards.

t.Non American Tolkien fan

Not that user but mine are.

Attached: 1467057527658.jpg (1280x720, 141.33K)

Given the year and the technology they created an almost perfect adaptation. Except for a couple of character picks and some swapping around.

oh sweetie….. 😏

No, it's an extremely good book-to-film adaptation. Very good pacing if you exclude the extended version and the story development as compared to books is also well executed.
Most of the dialogue is either directly from the books or taken from different contexts. So you can blame Tolkien for the corniness. Which is pretty much expected from a saga based on north Europeans ones.
The sub-plots are well executed and wrapped up with precision. The Theoden death scene is an example of free writing that wasn't included in the books as Eowyn faints when she destroys the witch king.

The Hobbit is rape of everything that is good and fair. The only thing that was good in that movie was the Smaug-Bilbo scene which was pretty much unfuckable as they followed the book. Something that was incredibly rare in the whole movie save for this and the initial scenes.

And yet you give no examples. Give us some proof. Until then GTFO.
All dialogue in the Hobbit was pulled out of whichever kike's or focus group's ass was prime for shitting.

Attached: 1469073457192.jpg (560x560, 41.96K)

the tryhard monologues my dude

Maybe the marvel movies are more up your alley sport

This says more to your mind than the movie.




LOTR: take 6 movies worth of material and pack it into 3 movies, cutting away a lot of good stuff
Hobbit: take a movie worth of material and stretch it into trash

the ghosts weren't even in the book?

How retarded do you think Tolkein was? He would have to be a shittier author than Rowling to add le spooky ghosts to book.

How the fuck did return of the king get the best reviews out of the trilogy i will never know. total dogshit.

Corny try hard version
Non-corny version

The strong woman was in the book noob

hence excusable in this one

it's the fact that Jackson's go to is dishonest monologues instead of natural monologues and DUDE SLOW MOTION LOL

you're gonna need a bigger bait

Two Towers has lots of corny moments that bug me

With ROTK it's almost perfect aside from the ghost army

Fellowship IS perfect.

But you're right that people overrate the originals a bit. Still, desolation of smaug and battle of five armies are really fucking bloated and bad. I can't blame them for the knee-jerk reaction. I wish more people would remember that AUJ was decent, though.


Attached: tfw.jpg (566x355, 59.8K)

Explain the difference.

I don't know what he's talking about. Of course monologues spoken aloud are going to sound different than they do in a book.

LOTR has corny stuff to it but it's all balanced with more serious stuff. Even the first hobbit movie has more serious stuff that made it seem like the trilogy might not be shit. What LOTR never does is pointless cartoon action that adds nothing and has no tension. The closest we get is legolas shield surfing and legolas taking down the mumakil, but both of those are part of larger action scenes that are relevant to the plot. The hobbit meanwhile has long sequences that have no real justification and consist entirely of dumb bullshit like the dwarves going Jackie Chan with some goblin ladders or the dwarves doing parkour around smelting equipment to cast a giant statue of molten cheese to make Smaug fondue.


the weird thing about legolas taking down the mumakil, is that it's actually the climax of the battle besides the shot of the ghosts sweeping through the battle.
which again made everyone else fighting pointless anyway since the ghosts were OP as fuck

Thankfully the definitive version of LoTR was already made 60 years ago.

Attached: Lord of the Rings [1978] - Beginning-AT18OJEPU9Q.webm (576x320, 11M)

uh, no, but I do like the bakshi version as well

He directs the same way, dishonestly.

is this the birth of a new meme?

the fuck are you talking about, there are some great moments of writing in the trilogy
you are just wrong.

it feels like a television show at times rather than a film

it feels like capeshit. Every popular american production feels like capeshit.

I think you're a woman

The ghosts were in the book. The purpose they served was different though. They were exclusively naval and used to spook the eastern navy away. After which they passed on. IIRC at least.

You are a genius, a scholar and truly a man ahead of his time.

Attached: an improvement.png (500x1071, 747.84K)

Peter Jackson is a hack and nothing could do the Lord of the Rings justice save an HBO miniseries or television show. About an episode per every 2 chapters is a nice amount. 62 chapters = about 31 episodes. Include the Hobbit in it, makes it 76 chapters and it's a decent 38 episodes. Can go for a full 40 episode run to be safe imo.

HBO miniseries and televsision shows have even more hack bullshit than hollywood movies

I'm talking about the format more than just producer. You can't make this a movie without fucking it up completely. In an ideal world, the format of a tv show or a more unrestrained HBO miniseries would work. Of course, no matter what format, it would be hackneyed in this day.

They were, but solely for the annihilation of the Umbar fleet of pirates.
After that, the ships were filled with Dol Amroth troops, which were tied down becouse of the pirates and weren't able to help Minas Tirith.
It's really interesting how Sauron waged economical warfare on the West. Although it's only nuanced in the books.

Attached: 1433121746902.png (212x218, 83.41K)

felllowship worked as one movie

This is not the correct conclusion. Stating a fact does not convey a preference in either direction George.

My mistake, I quoted the wrong post. It was meant for the one you quoted.

Ayy we all make mistakes.

Attached: My precious.jpg (634x475, 54.92K)


Dishonest Filmmaking:
(Tarantino, Alejandro González I?árritu, Wes Anderson, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, Alex Garland, Paul Thomas Anderson, Nicholas Refn, Tom Hooper, Tyler Perry, Gaspar Noe, The Coen Brothers, Noah Baumbach, Denis Vilenueve, James Franco, Damien Chazelle) are intellectually bankrupt moral whores and charlatans; their films appeal to the modern phenomenon of the 'Pretend Epic' or Pseudo Cinema, often tied to the criticism that "It was a movie that thought it was a film" they have no ideas of their own and are filmed purely to have fancy essays made about them. They obfuscate their lack of insight under a smug impenetrable irony and often contain scenes with disingenuous attempts at depth with characters spouting platitudes that the director takes VERY seriously.
This directly panders to the IMDb reddit sensibility of quote circlejerking since these hacks are masters of the fools wit, "Quipping" (Not to be confused with the marvel co-opting of the word) , it sounds smart, cool and worldly but in reality there's nothing of substance, the Revenant's attempt at spiritualism was cheap and laughable and whilst someone like Malick has considered his philosophy, Inaurritu wears his introspection on his sleeve to give his film a false sense of depth with pathetic sermonising.

THIS is Dishonest Filmmaking.

They leech the greater works that preceded them; like The Enemy being a rip off Eraserhead, but they have nothing else to say.They act under the guise of deconstruction with surface layer obvious 'social commentary' and a quirky forgettable score praised as 'innovative'. They are all inauthentic sycophants that rely on oscar buzz and post 9/11 detachment for relevance.

These directors are hacks and will be forgotten to time. Some notably earnest filmmakers include, but are not limited to:

Literally every single one of merry and pippins scenes

You have no argument, you've just noticed that merry and pippin have comedic scenes every now and again and in a pathetic attempt to sound cool and original you're saying retarded shit like
Which is provable false if you've watched the first 30 mins of the movie.

I'm not shitposting here, if you can't see the similarities in the direction and writing of the hobbit and lord of the rings you need to pay more attention, I'm not going to hold your hand.

it just show how lord of the ring is kiddie shit, serious adult books dont need "comic relief", see: game of thrones

youre mostly right OP the movies are really nothing compared to the distillation of western spiritual history that is the LOTR trilogy, when they said that the books were impossible to adapt they werent lying.

theyre still good movies but they arent perfect adaptions and tbf a perfect adaption of the books would kill the normie

which do you think the sub50 IQ amerimutt is more likely to understand


Attached: 3ddd9c8b9baac70824e7ef61009df01630ced1e49da5e6b19e7403b70305e96a.png.jpg (756x889, 216.41K)

guess how we know you're new?

he has taste?

Damn that dialogue is perfect, Jackson shouldn't have changed that one bit, you could have totally directed it well with that dialogue.

40* years ago you brainlet


1995 was 40 years ago dumbass

that beautiful british bastard

Attached: FRESH0_220934.png (500x398, 214.68K)


Attached: 1517884597658.png (1200x800, 391.8K)

Attached: 1448394394102.png (500x275, 23.41K)

The Grey Host or the Dead Men of Dunharrow were a thing in the LOTR books but i don't think they were as big a part as they were in the third movie. they also didnt act as a spooky cgi army either, they helped aragorn by terrifying the corsairs away from their ships but beyond that I think that was it

they also didnt look as stupid in the books, they looked more horrifying and ghostly

Haha you dumbasses really think that the ultimate evil is capitalism?

wow just wow

Child rape, genocide, forced human experimentation, forced prostitution, infanticide are just a few things that come to mind that could possibly be more evil than capitalism. Whatever floats your boat though I will remember that lefties think child rape is less evil than a than a economic system.

Attached: gas yourself.jpg (400x400, 16.84K)

Comic relief comes from an ancient Greek belief that all theater should have tragic elements to appease Apollo and comic elements to appease Dionysus. The result was that the ancient Greek tragedies all had a handful of comedic scenes, as well as a companion "satyr play" wherein guys in fursuits would shit on the preceding tragedy. Comic relief is a tradition stretching back thousands of years and was used in most of the most serious works in history. When used correctly, the balance and contrast it provides serves to help viewers take the serious parts more seriously and generally makes stories better.

Unless you'd like to try to convince me that Sophocles' Oedipus trilogy was kiddie shit.

Attached: dont do that.png (877x654, 272.55K)

Except Jackson's comic relief isn't really funny and instead fart tier

This is true, Norse mythology has alot of comedic relief in it to compensate for the overwhelming grimdark and metalness of the majority of it

This is why Loki exists, as he is a juxtaposition and offense to the gods, so too is comedy a juxtaposition and offense to real life and normies

This is also true though, I remember most of the comedic relief in the hobbit being close to the sort of comedic relief in the new Star Wars films POOOOORGS


Thinking spouting some eurocentric bullshit about imaginary sky friends makes it "adult" you rightwing assholes are so clueless.

I heard Bakshi always intended to make it a two-parter. But the studio got worried that calling it "Part One" would scare people away, and advertised it like it was a single movie. Then of course, when it ended without a proper conclusion, viewers were pissed.

Attached: berserkbait.jpg (680x989, 88.4K)

was the return of the king (1980) even made by bakshi? Ive watched it and it feels like it was made by a completely different group of people , but it always gets sold as the sequel to LOTR (1978)

Attached: lotrposterart.jpg (1280x720, 264.55K)

When you don't have the gray matter to understand you are being manipulated, the rest falls down like domino. Throw a carrot down a canyon and the ass will jump to its death as soon as it gets hungry.

Lord of the Rings was never all that good as far as fantasy goes.
There were plenty enough better examples that came before it, but none of them did such am incredible job of capturing the proto-popculture nerd audience as it did.
"I can speak elvish" was the "I can speak klingon" of its time.

Was there something wrong with the sheath?

Attached: 1461676754019.jpg (255x255 328.33 KB, 46.89K)

im not sure if the wagner cycles count as fantasy though, since theyre based on germanic myth and the norse eddas. fantasy is ultimately just a fanfic of mythology and im pretty sure tolkien and lewis pioneered the concept (prove me wrong tho)

How the fuck did you manage to have such a shit taste to like the worst fucking dialogues from LOTR?

that book is complete trash and also not fantasy, you literally don't understand what fantasy is and only taught that book because you're a hipster who thinks he'll look smart but actually you just embarrass yourself because it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. I would bet money you haven't even read that book and just read a synopsis on wikipedia

One of us is definitely clueless and it isn't me.

weak bait, not even giving a (you)

I partially retract, since the Helms Deep speech by Theoden is quite good and of course Saruman is great, but holy shit nigger Aragorn at the Black Gates? It was awful, and it didn't help that Vigo was shit at looking kingly
how much reddit can one man be?

You just got cucked

atheist subhuman detected, hell is forever faggot


While the Ring of the Nibelungs uses a combination of Norse myth and German folklore as a framework, it is its own work.
Otherwise Lord of the Rings would also not be fantasy, just a mishmash of western European myth and folklore.

What did they pioneer that hadn't already been formalized by folks like Wagner, Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué, Edward Plunket, Robert E Howard and HP Lovecraft?
All of whose fantasy works predate the Hobbit.

You must replied to me accidentally.

Reminder that there's actual soyboys and actual jews posting on Holla Forums, thanks to the influx of redditors from the TLJ cam thread.

Don't just assume someone is baiting, whenever you read something retarded and leftist.

It's literally just an opera adaptation of the Nibelungenlied. If Wagner's Nibelungen counts as an original work than so does the 1954 Ulysses movie.

What the fuck are you doing, nigger?

Why did you quote them out of sequence?

That's offensive.

the only good moments in lotr

thats it

I had gotten to the bottom of the page by the time that I had written up my reply and forgot the order. Either way, the question remains.

I think the idea was that the ghosts were doing like a cleanup crew deal and they wanted to move on to other things after the Rohirrim had done most of the work. Having the ghosts do much more would have cheated Rohan of its significance entirely.

the point of the ghosts was to kill the mercenaries sailing from Umbar

In the books yeah but they wanted them to do more in the movie.

steal victory? well, that's definitely more.

we didn't even get to see the gondor soldiers again for chrissake.
I rewatched it recently, and it really felt like the battle ended abruptly.

The only feeling the Lord of the Rings movies ever got out of me is the feeling that I need to commit genocide against hobbits. Too boring; didn't finish.

Ill let you in on a little hint…
LOTR was a tech demo… at best

LOTR is fucking awful indeed. Clerks 2 put it perfect…it's a bunch of people walking.
It's so boring and so lame…and that 3rd one was beyond awful! i was so bored in the theater! I was already too old for that shit and i just hated it so much, the long battle with everybody screaming all the time, the dwarf continued to being used as the comic relief, the blonde elf that kills a giant elephant by himself, the 50 blacks screens you think it's going to go for the ending credits. So boring!
But they didn't foled me for the hobbit ones, i haven't seen not even one frame of that piece of shit.

t. sperg that never left his basement

Attached: arte3.jpg (200x252, 9.67K)


I thought the comic relief was the plot

Attached: cancerous_whore.png (497x279, 94.9K)