How good are they, objectively?

I love the LotR movies mostly because it's a fantasy adventure story with no real rival in quality.

You wouldn't believe how many shit fantasy adventures are out there.

They're good.

Fellowship is the best because of its unbridaled potential. Return of the King is really just Helm's Deep Turned up.

IMO the undead undercut the battle of Minas Tirith considerably.

Because most of them are aimed at 13 year old girls.

How did it come to this?

Very.

...

Not half as good as the books.

...

Saruman, Radagast, Gandalf, Sauron and the balrogs are all Maia, which are some kind of lesser gods

i watched chronicles of narnia recently and i was blown away at how shitty it really is. every one of the kids except for edmund is basically a mary sue

its like the plot is a disney land ride, and they're the passengers. here we are at the cinderella castle, and then we'll visit a guy in a darth vader costume, so you can have a "duel" and "defeat" him.
there are no real struggles or hardships that they have to overcome. everything just conveniently falls into place around them.

the movies were entertaining while the books were boring shit with 90% of the pages wasted on landscape and flower descriptions. tolkien was a shit-tier writer.

at least the silmarillion was decent.

read the books

i did read the books in middle school.
my post was talking about the movie. i barely remember the books, so i can't remember how different they are.

...

don't remind me
it's horrible
they took all the books and mixed in the story of each of them into one movie
and i don't mean they just did every story pretty fast, i mean they actually made a new story out of the stories from each books
it didn't work well

...

*scoffs* please
why don't you go read your harry pooper and leave actual literature to the real men, hm? *eyerolls*

You need to go back to the 80s my friend.
There are some decent fantasy films.

...

fuck off reddit.

Also, if you want to watch some based fantasy, watch the BBC Chronicles of Narnia. All white actors, done in 30 minute episodes and the props are amazing.

Some of the best movies ever made

As adaptations, fellowship is great, the rest are terrible.

>>>/killyourself/

...

literally the worst movies ever made.

Are you sure about that?

Ralph Bakshi was better.

...

Ralph Bakshi is truest kino.

You're playing a dangerous game my friend.
Fa/tv/irgins do not like their Tolkien Jimmies rustled.

lol

Based Randall

Why does Kevin Smith think this is even a thing? Most people just like both.

You're a liar. The reverse is true. They're boring when you're a kid, and you only begin to appreciate them as an adult. That's how it was for me.

maybe you have Benjamin Button Syndrome

Maybe the books. I loved the movies as a kid/early teen, and everyone I knew loved them.

Smith got an advanced screening of phantom menace and has been white knighting it ever since. Agree with him about LOTR tho, jesus those movies were tedious.

I thought he said the prequels were boring movies about sad children.

first one was best, second one was ok and last one meh.

They're pretty good. But nothing tops the animated hobbit movie. Maybe some day Peter Jackson will get to try adapting it. It should be easy and you can do it all in one movie.

starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-the-phantom-menace-original-reviews

1 was good
2nd was better
3rd exposed how much of a retarded hack Tolkien was. A fucking invincible ghost army, all aragorn had to do was take it to mordor and they would literally kill everything, and why the fuck didn't they just ride on the eagles in the first place??

...

I'm not the biggest Lord of the Rings fan, but isn't the explanation that the eagles are neutral in the whole conflict and don't take a side until after the ring is destroyed?

I thought it was because Sauron had the ringwraiths and their flying creatures.

Maybe, I'm sure there's someone here who's a huge Tolkien fag and knows the truth. The point is there is an explanation.

They're also easily offended, and would peck your eyes out if you suggested using them like horses. They're the "not without my consent!" spastics of Middle Earth.

...

That and Sauron himself has the evil eye gaze that paralyses Frodo or something. Anyone want to be on the back of an eagle, high up in the sky when it's seized by the light of ultimate evil?

No one cares.

It's in the books, man.

what does edgy even mean anymore?

Kevin Smith get out you fat, washed up hack.

"on the edge between acceptable and offensive; pushing the boundaries of good taste; risqué"

And they're cowards too. Remember in the Hobbit book the eagles are too afraid to fly the dwarfs and Bilbo all the way to their gold mountain so they just drop them off near the woods. So there is multiple explanations for that supposed "plot hole". I think the people who think that's a plot whole only watch the movies and assume that the eagles are just dumb animals who are summed with magic to do the bidding of Gandalf, but the books make it clear they are sentient and have their own reasons for doing and not doing things.

...

Okay… so how did what he said fit that definition?

Yeah okay. I knew there was some reasoning for it. You can say what you want about Tolkien but there's no way his autism would have let him miss a plot hole that big.

Are you upset that I made a joke vaguely relating to rape?

I was standing up for you nigga, replied to the wrong post accidentally. I'm just tired of these retards calling everything edgy. It's turned into a way for people to say they're offended without looking like complete faggots who everyone would tear apart.

...

...

I'm black so I'm allowed to say it. Stop culturally oppressing me.

kys

...

The answer is "don't write flying creatures into the story if the plot is dependant on the characters travelling by foot".

People aren't saying that there couldn't have been reasons why they wouldn't have given them a lift. They're saying the reasons just come across as desperate attempts to rationalise having them in the plot in the first place.

But the Hobbit was written before LotR, so how is it a rationalization?

The rationalisation that they had to sneak into Mordor, and anyone could have seen the eagles flying in is enough for me. Do you ask why James Bond doesn't sneak into his enemy's lair via attack helicopter?

one could argue they could have flied all the way to the gates of mordor and then sneak in

There were spies looking out for them throughout their journey.

Did her shit get fucked up?

while i am one of the many who put the books down because the council of elrond was boring as fuck, you are totally incorrect as everything before it was faptastic.

no, it was really just boring shit. tolkien is simply an incompetent writer and his fanfags are lower class trash

The first movie felt like something epic was going to happen. The first one was evenly paced imo. Starts off good and the secret meeting in the elf lair was fun.
There are allot of memorable scenes.

2. Kinda felt boring, like something was not there had everything that could make it epic, except the Frodo walking around in circles, or whatever he is doing.
the end battle was kinda cool, but not really.

3 is where it all leaves hanging frodo is an addict and has to go to magical rehabilitation the same with his grandad or whatever he was called. The end battle seemed cool and all about all around don't remember the whole film.

The term is cucked up.

...

In the book they actually come up with this problem, just as they tried to bring up the fact that they could've just left the Ring in Tom Bombadil's hands.

In the eagles' case, and it's possible you're reading bullshit here since my memory is fuzzy, someone suggested getting them to fly Frodo over at Mount Doom but Gandalf said no because he even doubted if he himself could resist the mind manipulation powers of Sauron. In fact when they acquire Saruman's Palantir, which is basically a direct cam feed to speak with Sauron, Gandalf dares not to use it for he was afraid of falling as Saruman did in Sauron's hands. Also Pippin gazes into the Palantir once and almost remains petrified for the rest of his life.
If I remember correctly in the book they also suggested the eagles to fly so high they would either be too far for Sauron's eye to see or they would be hidden by thick clouds. Someone then said that the eagles would have to put down Frodo eventually so that wasn't valid anyway.

Regarding Tom Bombadil btw, they spoke of him at Elrond's council. Even Elrond and Gandalf recognized his immense power and they said that Tom was so powerful he would consider the One Ring as a simple trinket of which, with the passing of the aeons, he would've eventually forgotten and would've lost it far from his house where he has no power, so the enemy would be able to retake it. Elrond, Gandalf and the elf queen also wanted to get rid of the Ring once and for all instead of irresponsibly passing the burden to future generations.

TL;DR: Eagles would've been mind controlled by Sauron to bring Frodo to him anyway

1. Eagles are neutral
2. There are flying not-dragon things
3. There's a giant eye looking at everything

...

why would he be given the nobel prize anyway? writing a book about a fantasy war doesn't bring peace anywhere. it's not even a fucking attempt.

...

Certainly not for good writing

You realize that there are entire category for getting a Nobel right?

God Damn it. Next we will se that Indiana wasn't needed in the ark of alliance

He eagle are sentient beings, selfish, cowards and neutral. They didn't want to get any shit with sauron or the fellowship. Gwaihir(king of the eagle) Owned one to Gandalf because he saved his life in the second age, that's why he helped him escape from isengard and helped in the last battle in mourannon. Landroval Didn't gave 2 shit about the world but just helped his brother transport frodo back home since he got injured in the battle.
They could barely transport the hobbit back to the gate because where already too heavy.
Counting more so the flying nazgul and the fact that sauron could spot them wasn't a good invitation either to risk their life
Can we stop spreading lies and ignorance? Normalfags already do it enough

What a valuable post.
I'm glad it takes up half the thread.
:^)

world leaders and literature are two entirely different things, though. scientists put out work for the benefit of mankind. had tolkien been writing like some "this is why x is bad" shit, i could understand, but not fucking fantasy.

Wait, so which is it?
Is it just low brow fantasy trash, or is it some literary masterpiece with a deep social commentary dealing with war and differing cultures?
Can you Tolkien nut huggers even stay on point?

Even I as someone who thinks the books are plodding and tiresome understands that he had a message.

Good riddance, keep swimming in your filfth peasant. But don't spread the bullshit that you hear from TBBT

you got the wrong guy, i'm the dude who didn't make it past the council of elrond. as far as i'm concerned there isn't a message. if there is, he owes it to norse mythology and other shit.

Shitheads will deny it and say was crap. Normalfags will say that is good and acknowledge there was something behind. Nerds know he was giving a message about the world in that time period

Yes. But Nobel for literature just mean have created something that next generation will read no matter what, sometimes I still wonder why Joyce didn't get one. Otherwise if is only for the "well being of the world" what's the point for even an economy Nobel prize?

Also he attempted to make a book that was more like a saga or mythological tale or something. So the warriors go from point a to b.
there is no deep characterization of the sorts, plus without him. There would not be allot of attempts to even have Fantasy literature today. Its kinda like a lovecrat situation going on, but except Lovecraft was broke and Tolkien made money.

Also some believe he was more interested in creating a world than actually writing an epic fantasy.Only because of that mythos book he kept as a secret, until his son or something needed em monies.

How many Autistic writers to you know of that creates a world later to make a story from that world?
The autism even went so far to make a language. Its an insane autism going on.

He certainly could win a Nobel prize if he went full blown writing about WW1.

I say that Indiana wasn't needed in the ark of alliance because the Indiana Jones films are not a Trilogy.

of course, the real reason is that Tolkien's work has strong Christian themes and the Nobel prize is controlled by Jews

c'mon now fam smh tbh

But thats what i said! Lern 2 read dipshit.

no, you just said indiana jones wasn't a trilogy, you still implied that there are trilogies.

I have a friend who has been writing a book since he was 14, I think he is at least 29 now, possibly older.
He has an entire huge binder filled with an alphabet and languages based on 2-3 of the races in it.
Rules and charts based on how magic works in the universe.
Locations, planet names, race descriptions, peoples names and backstories, history, explanations of the layout of the universe.
Detailed maps of key areas.
Societal structures for each of the races and different factions.
Tactics and battles they were used in.
A huge list of creatures and monsters.
Ect ect ect ect ect.

Not a single book done.

I've heard him go on about the setting for hours on end, and honestly it's some really interesting and compelling stuff.
But I don't believe for a damn second he'll ever do anything with it.

The crazy thing too is that he is not a linguist or anything, but the language he made up for one of the races sounded pretty legit from what I remember.
And the alphabet for it and language even had different grammatical structure than English.

it seems that you have to either do world-building first, or the story first.

personally i'd rather have the story made up and then flesh out the universe.

he's almost as slow as GRRM

Silmarillion is the most boring out of all the books. It's written like the fucking Bible.

Silmarillion was the book I couldn't finish cause it was too boring. But then again, I was 12 years old so maybe I should try again.

Silmarillion is the only Tolkien's book I have read through in timely manner (under a month). It's very on the point. Though, I'm propably one of the few with right kind of autism to appreaciate the mythic framing device.

...

That's the point.

Some people just love worldbuilding

yeah, world building takes a long time. The autism needed is gigantic, since they kinda just have fun with making the fantasy universe at the same time, the problem is obviously you might not get to use the most of the inner and long logic of the universe when you start the book or finish it.

so that is usually the problem, but the world gets to be more believable.

Kinda depends. what you are after as a writer the illusion of something deeper is always compelling to start off with first. But sometimes one break the rules of the universe that one sorta established and that can be annoying. If its a series.

You could do it like GRRM and halfass both at the same time.

Thinking about watching Lord of the Rings. Is it worth it to watch the Extended Editions?

...

Not really. A lot of the scenes added have a clear reason why they were left out: mostly shitty CGI and elaborating book plot points that are ignored in the rest of the film anyway. If they did stuff like removing the ghost army from the battle at Gondor while elaborating their role in taking the corsair ships, they might be worth a watch.

it depends on what you consider to be "worth it"
almost every time i've watched them, i watch the extended editions, because to me, its the only way to watch it. i groan at how long they are, but when i watch something like the theatrical cuts, it bothers me even more that there's a bunch of perfectly good content that i'm not seeing, and it feels incomplete.

Parts of the extended edition ruin the flow of the movies. In The Two Towers Extended Edition you see Denethor which ruins his introduction in the third movie. Even though this scene works to show you how Boromir reaches the decision to release Frodo to continue on to Morodor.

Bakshi did it better tbh.

...

The greatest fantasy movie series of all time.

First and second movie are very good, the third one is good.

And the CGI is kept to a reasonable degree. I don't like the CGI excess of The Hobbit series.

Everyone knows why, I wish people would stop posting this shit

These are the movies that started the "OMG I'm such a nerd!! XD" girls who literally just watched it because Legolas got them wet. Nerd culture was probably always cancerous. Now it's oversold cancer, and this is where it started.

But that's not a critique of the movies. They're pretty decent. Don't know why they decided to turn Gimli into the comic relief/Warf character.

same reason they replaced Glorfindel the High Badass with Arwen the Mopey. Gotta get normalfag bums in seats.

Shit I'd hate to see some of you guys tackle GR or IJ, or, god forbid, Ulysses.

I think leaving out Glorifindel had more to do with not introducing a powerful, important seeming, character and immediatly ignoring it a moment later. That stuff doesn't fly in a movie where you can't have a paragraph or two to explain such things.

Fellowship is the best in terms of similarity to the books. While the other two films broke with them more the books were considered unfilmable for a reason so I'm not too bothered.

Two Towers is probably the best film particularly if you consider the original theatre cuts rather than those with the extended scenes. Return of the King is still pretty damn good.

Solid 9/10 or 10/10 films, depending on personal taste (perhaps an 8/10 if you really wanted the books on screen). Contrarian fucks will tell you otherwise but welcome to Holla Forums.

Children of Hurin would make for a great film if it were made properly but post-Hobbit I doubt it'd come out well.

The books are pretty shitty too user even if you ignore the 'subtle' Christianity bullshit shoved in there.

The ghost army in the books only wipes out the fuckers on the boats and then is released from its oath. It doesn't show up and win the battle which was indeed a cop out but is hardly on Tolkien. Even going by the film it'd be pushing their responsibilities to demand they go attack Mordor too.

As for the eagles Tolkien himself admitted they were a Deus Ex Machina but in-universe I seem to remember they were concerned about being shot out of the sky/fucked up by Nazgul. The former is the reason they don't fly everywhere in the Hobbit too but that's somewhat less believable. Certainly it was stated that the Hobbits wouldn't have got shit done without the fuckhuge distraction at the gate so flying in would not have been successful.

People bitching about this stuff instead of actual problems with Tolkien's writing are usually reddit-tier cunts with no ability to think for themselves. Hell this shit was in BBT…

Technically he was writing 'why unregulated industrialisation/urbanisation is bad'. Not exactly world-changing shit but still.

...

The "bullshit Christianity" was a part of LOTR. The Elves are pagans and men have god and the afterlife. The Elves hope the gods will save them or something after they die.

Why didn't Gollum quickly age like Bilbo did?
Why did Mordor need to capture Gollum and learn where the ring was hidden if Bilbo already put the ring on at his birthday party?

How much older do you expect him to look? He held onto that ring for centuries, and seeing as how Sauron is basically a liche, it probably lent him a degree of undeath.

This one seems to be a bit of a toss up. Sometimes when the ring is put on, it automatically tells the position of the ring, and sometimes it's more like a beacon, where Sauron can 'see' it but only if he's focussing on the direction of where it would be. Come to think of it, it is kind of shitty.

...

10/10
9/10
8/10

RotK was the worst one but it was still fucking amazing.

Of course when your source material is the quality of Tolkien, it takes a special kind of stupid to fuck it up.

I think you're confusing characterization through actions and the assumed moral character needed to undertake such actions, and characterization how regular fiction does it.

Myth doesn't portray characters the same way fiction does. That's why it's myth.

The few morals you do get are heavy handed. Again, a key difference in the two genres.

Well Bilbo had it for what 50 years?
Gollum had it for like 500, he really should have just died.
But magic whatever I guess.

As far as the ring goes the Nazgul feel the ring whenever it is put on so idk, maybe it just woke them up?

What is the Hobbit?

If they rode the eagles, there would be no adventure.

That's literally it. Tolkien himself said it.

closer to being a fallen angel

Christopher Lee being too near death to stop PJ's asinine bs is what it was.

I like how Scott Lynch handles magic, as something terrifying and mysterious that omnipotent tyrannical assholes who you don't want to draw the attention of will fuck your shit up for messing with

I FUCKING HATE THESE MOVIES
every one of my favorite parts from the books were removed.
The ONE FUCKING BOOK that they turned into a three parter was the BOOK THAT HE FUCKING WROTE FOR CHILDREN
HOLY FUCKING JESUS SHIT FUCK SON

the scene where Faramere defends to the death, scene where Aragorn defeats the ghosts and steals the ships, etc ALL FUCKING CUT FOR NO GODDAMN REASON

Faramir*

Cutting Glorfindel was a kick in the nuts for me too, but such is life.

Yes. They expand on various plot points that have been skipped from the normal part. Like the rest of the Uruk army at Helm's deep or where did Gandalf got Mitrill coat at the black gate

I hated how they poisoned Faramir's character. In the book it showed that, while brothers, Faramir and Boromir were different. Boromir was a man of his age, brave, adventurous and heroic, but a weakness deep down that led to his corruption. Faramir was like an elder king come again, quiet and stoic but a man of strong character that would not be tempted. The movies ignored all that and wrote Faramir as an asshole that drags the hobbits around and would use the ring.

And I've got nothing against that because it's not forced in so hard as to damage my ability to enjoy the story. Actually subtle instead of 'subtle'.

My problem is not the Christian themes my problem is how on the nose all of it is in Narnia. This is hardly an uncommon complaint either and with good reason.

Sauron was less powerful back during the Hobbit. I'm almost certain there's also an off-hand reference to both the vagina-eye tower being rebulit and the Nazgul being gathered near the start of LotR as if these were recent developments.

The fact that in the books there's a period of years between the birthday party, and Frodo setting off on his journey might come into it. Sauron's power was still building.

also Treebeard character was raped similarly in the movies
that guy wanted to murder those fucking burarum from start and after the ent council all the forrest went to isengard for a killing spreee

Treebeard's real name is Fangorn, in a way the forest is part of him, and in the movies they made him into an idiot that didn't even know orc's were chopping down his forest.

They also butchered the ending to LotR by having a cartoonish overly optimistic "and then they went to heaven and everything went swell" conclusion. The true ending is nerve racking and ambiguously depressing.

It was supposed to show that Frodo was irredemably emotionally scarred due to carrying around the ring for so long and the war. Sam was given his memoirs because the shire was consumed by industrialization and the hardships never ended, Frodo became a wanderer in the hopes of finding peace.

Also take notice that in the Tolkien-verse the world is slowly becoming more and more shallow driven by industrialization, devoid of the magic that there used to be in the ancien times and slowly fading away.

sparknotes.com/film/lordoftherings/notes/3122

The scene in which Saruman gets stabbed by wormtoungue (which was cut out from the theatrical version of course) was fixed by Lee himself. You see Jackson being the uneducated fat slob he is, believed that Saruman would cry in agony while getting hit in the lungs, Lee being an ex secret agent corrected him by stating that a man that gets stabbed in the lungs will be unable to scream and will instead gasp.

I'm so impressed by your ka-noledge.

Two Towers is the only good one

I came here to say that as well.

fucking mortals

Fun Fact: Christopher Lee also volunteered to fight for the Finnish White Army during the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939, and claimed his first kills during the conflict.

...

as a former LOTR/Tolkien fan:

1 is great
2 is ok
3 is garbage

mind-blowing when you were 11

boring af when you'

Fix'd

pic related

Lets just get it right out into the open. The books are better. Jackson couldn't come close to Tolkien.

As adaptations they're acceptable. There are things in the book that are difficult if not impossible to translate to film. Not just events in the books, but also themes. Look at Sam's speech, for instance "THE WORLDS WURTH FIGHTING FOR MR FRODO". I cringe every fucking time. The book is far more eloquent, where Sam's speeches essentially arrive at the point that "The good in the world is worth suffering for." As Tolkien inspired movies theyre fantastic, and easily the best Trilogy ever made.

pic related

Christopher will never sell the rights thank god. Warner Brothers is still trying to Jew the estate out of money by claiming the movies weren't financially successful due to shekel magic

You also can't drop the ring int he caldera of mount doom and destroy it. It needs to be destroyed in the cracks of doom, and the eagles would have been spotted and dealt with way before they got to there. Mordor is TEEMING with forces/guards at this point

that scene was shit, was awkwardly placed, and is one of the more retarded Jackson inventions. Taking Saruman's death out of the movies was the best possible thing theyc ould have done if they weren't going to put in the battle for the shire

Leaving the Shire was painful as fuck in the books. Nearly half the first book was spent just getting to Rivendell. The movies turned the worst part of the book into the best. Getting chased by the wraiths was the most amazing thing ever (although girl power Arwen was stupid).

I still have no idea why Bombadil existed. He was the jar jar of LotR before Hackson gave that role to Radagast. His only purpose of existance was so that at the council of Elrond they could have a reason not to give him the ring. I have no idea what he was thinking.

However the books did Moria far better. Slowly being chased by the drums over many days >>>> "thy have a cave troll"

...

This is true.

I spent 3 years worldbuilding, and when I finally sat down to write the novel I wrote 80,000 words of character introductions with plot going nowhere - by the time I stopped the two main characters only had 5-6 chapters each and had only just started their character arcs.

Stepped away from that, spend 4 hours drawing a new map, and wrote a full novel set in that world in a month.

Worldbuilding is fun, but it can really fuck you up if you want to write anything in a reasonable amount of time.

There are some who believe (or just claim to believe in order to ignore Bombadil's existance) that Bombadil is just part of the decay of the ancient stories and is in fact a hobbit folk lore character inserted into the story generations after Frodo wrote the red book.

First must be stated that magic in the LotR universe works more like a force of nature. It is incredibly subtle MOST of the time.

The Ring gives many powers, again so subtle that a non-magically apt person wouldn't even notice the changes in the short term.

1) It gives immortality for a start. Gollum is 600 years old when he loses the ring for the first time. His physical form gets 'corrupted' more as an allegory of being a sinner than anything else.

Other powers include better vision in the dark (Frodo notices when travelling through Moria) and better reflexes (again Moria in general).

Bilbo was in his 50's when he found the Ring and held it for around 70 years. The other hobbits noticed how his hair never got even grey and how he always staid in physical shape. Hobbits live for max 130 years. Yeah, the movies got it wrong here, Bilbo literally never aged.

2) The Eye of Sauron needs visual contact to see the Ring and the Shire is literally on the other side of Middle Earth.
The Wraiths are blind by day and rely on their black horses to guide them. They also cannot smell and let their horses do the job for them.

One more curious fact: literally every single animal on Middle Earth is sentient and sometimes their thoughts are translated in the book, like the ponies of the hobbits and a passing fox in the first book.

There's a lot of interesting stuff from that part of the story that got cut out, but for some reason everyone focuses exclusively on Bombadil. The LOTR novel is actually divided into six books (typically printed in three volumes, each consisting in two books), and Bombadil fits perfectly well into Book 1 as a sort-of midpoint or final resting point before shit gets real. He comes back a few pages later to save them from the Barrow Wights, but then they're on their own again until meeting Aragorn. Book 1 is a more light-hearted adventure story filled with humor and Shire lore, and the wider world of Middle-Earth factors in only tangentially, such as when they meet up with some Elves. It's a bit like The Odyssey in that they travel from one "island" to another, taking respite, absorbing lore, then parting onward.

"Bombadil-o" also puts the story into perspective. It's implied that he's the most powerful being in Middle-Earth, and for whatever reason he's a nobody living near the Shire. The only problem to my mind is that he didn't intervene when Saruman turned the Shire into a labor/ mining colony, I mean the guy's living next door and didn't realize that a Maia cunt was fucking with his neighbors?

Why are the hobbit movies so damned awful?

Hollywood Jewry

in b4 leftypol spergs out

Its Implied Bombadil has no power outside of his 'domain' which are not particularly extensive. The Old Forest and the Barrow Downs are far closer to Bree than they are to Hobbiton and its impossible to know if working within the parts of the shire Tolkien wrote about was even doable.

I've never heard that before, but its fascinating. I'm sure Tolkien would have appreciated that interpretation as a lover of language

You have to remember the one ring is for all intents sentient. Any powers 'granted' (reflexes and sight for frodo) are attempts by it to further its goal of getting back to its true master.

The idea has some basis as Bombadil is indeed a prominent character in Tolkien's text that are meant to be hobbit folk stories and poetry.

...

Birds are used as agents/spies/messengers.

First fans wanted it really badly or the lotr movie fans wanted it.

It went into an endless pre production with del taco. Later Peter Jackson tries to make it into a 2 part movie or something in that nature, later Hollywood and the Jewry fucked it up. You see they did not want to waste more money, so they salvage what they could plus the 3 part thing was a great idea with lotr but not so much with the hobbit movies. So they said fuck it and made it 3 parts. Plus 3d was a thing and Jackson wanted to make a 4k(if it was not more)movie so it could look better in 3d but the problem with having high resolution they needed better costume design and other things.

Later he thought it was a good idea to have allot of cgi effects and have allot off it. So it could be more child friendly.

Overall it was a mess.

Also dint Peter Jackson more or less apologize for the movies?

Jackson, like Lucas before him, works best in collaboration with others. He's brilliant at picturing shit but the execution needs to be left to others. Also both work best under strict limits and The Hobbit was limited by neither budget/expectations or technology.

Also the studio demanding a trilogy instead of two films. Not only does that lead to filler but two films would have been a good constraint on Jackson's insanity: while I love the extended editions of LotR the films are probably superior with them cut out (particularly as a theatre release).

You've got to be a special kind of retard not to realize all the Jesus/God/Heaven allegories in the films.

And while overrated, I still think the books are ok. The films are mostly trash, first one excluded.

Eowyn > Arwen

He did.
And just to underline that (((producer))) wanted the 3 parts movie, PJ wanted only two so desolation of Smaug and five armies is merged

Or
>superior race grill, that will give up eternal life to be with you, living in monumental city and smelling of roses plus being a sheelf is likely to be a slut for her master

user, in sorry to tell you but ou have shit taste

The Fellowship of the Ring

Two Towers

Return of the King

...

Better question, how could the Hobbit have been done better

The first two films would've been better if they cut out all the filler and merged them into a single 3 hour film and end it with the epic demise of Smaug. The 3rd film did not need to exist.

One or two movies instead of three.
Make it an actual Hobbit movie, instead of trying to squeeze a LotR-esque experience out of material that really isn't fit for it.
Make it before LotR, so people go in with lowered expectations. It would be like how the Harry Potter movies started small, and grew in scope as the series went on.

Never Forget

...

saved

In the books, Smaug acted more like in the shitty new Hobbits movies. Calm and cold, even when in rage.

Yet ironically, The animated Smaug is much better and I find it with more artistic integrity than the NuHobbit movies

I musnt be the only one that have this opinion.

Now that's what I call a potato nigger face

Trips confirm
Honestly I rewatched the animated movie, it's still pretty good

I kind of agree, but I do find that the cold and calm Smaug is also fitting since he is literally one of the most powerful creatures on Middle Earth and has no one to fear. Any threats made against him would be like a fly buzzing in your face or an ant on your table.

A cold Smaug is more fitting, but the point is that in the Hobbit modern shitmovies, they did that, and it looked mediocre. While in the animated movie, they made that scene like your typical children story, and compared to the Jackson version, the Smaug scenes looked more like belonging to the books than the modern ones.

While they're kind of rough around the edges, I think the Bakshi movies in general better evoke the tone of the books.

The first one, definitely. 2nd and 3rd are optional.

Honestly, the behind-the-scenes documentaries are more interesting than the actual movies. The real reason LotR worked and the Hobbit didn't can mostly be attributed to pre-production. Jackson had, I think, 2 whole years or pre-production for the LotR trilogy, and fucking nothing for the Hobbit. Seriously, watch the Fellowship Appendices and you'll see how critically important the long pre-production time was for those movies.

The cast stories are also pretty funny

Not brown enough for you, limey?

Watching the Appendices was comfy af when I was in high school.

The original trilogy was produced sort-of like a very high-budget indie film, everything was very hands-on, they filmed a lot outdoors, people doubled in different jobs… They were economical in the use of CGI at first, but used more of it by ROTK. The effort to nail down every detail was astounding, like one element in the Balrog sound effects was that they found this disused WW2 tunnel and dragged a cinder block down the concrete floor while recording audio.

It's just they don't directly show off his magic in the books
For example, in the Fellowship Gandalf fights the Nazgul at Weathertop and the Hobbits and Aragon can see the flashes from the battle a 3 days march away

The LoTR movies were made the exactly right time. CGI was good enough for presenting almost anything, but not good enough to be used without effort to obfuscate it.

Every day I think about how LOTR could have been if it was a TV mini series rather than limited to it being a movie.

the trilogy is as near perfect as a film adaptation of the books as one can get

it has its flaws, but it was exceptionally well done, and only contrarians will ever give the trilogy as a whole less than a 7/10

t. eternal virgin level Tolkien scholar

I disagree since the entire reason to make the movie was for a profit rather than making it as close to the source as possible. I would have been fine with the trilogy if each movie were 90 minutes longer to be more true to the books, but it would be impossible to advertise a movie that length to normies.

Another Tolkien faggot here. I don't think the adaption being completely true to the original is more important than making a good movie. Different media work differently. Almost all the changes are understandable, even though I don't like many of them, as requirements of film making.

I don't see how making something for profit is a bad thing either. Movies aren't public service to fantasy autists.

The Legend of Zelda is alright I guess. The more recent ones suck though. Wind Waker was the last good one.
t. PhD Shigeru Tolkien scholar

...

Pretty good sense of style. Excellent soundtrack. Kinda boring between the good parts.

Two Towers
Desolation of Smaugh
Fellowship
[threshold of good flicks]
Journey Begins or something
Return of the King
Battle of Five Armies

Very well made, especially for the time they were in. Seeing them in a theater was great.

They drift away from the story and omit large scenes outright, but it is generally the same. The important bits.

Good overall.

Inflation?

Maybe all new movies are money laundering scams.

you got it right!

...

Blow your fucking brains out.

Wasn't LotR itself one of the films funded largely by Germans dodging tax?

KYS Holla Forums

What the fuck has germany to do with Lotr?

LotR is an allegory for WW2

the orcs are Germany

Did you just come from reddit?

Confirmed for never even having opened the book.

The extended editions add about an hour of additional footage each.

...

smells like reddipol

Thanks, user. I just lost a night watching these, and now I can't find the full appendices for TTT.

Shame he turned evil later.

Who is this waifu and how do I stalk her?

...

Germany has (or had) a tax loophole for people funding films. This is how Boll's films kept getting millions despite making a fraction of their budget back. Google it if you want to find out more but it's pretty well known. I believe Australia has a similar sysem.

You're a fucking retard user. The author himself stated repeatedly this was not the case.

go away and never come back

Doesn't matter that Tolkien denied it, it couldn't be more obvious.

4/10, people will keep biting

On a scale of 0 to retarted, they were potato.

0/10, no actual argument