LOTR/general film thread

Well, I like the songs tbh. It was the dales, and glades, and copses, and vales, and the inclines, and declines, and oaks, and elms, and a host of other pointless details that made me put down the book more than once. It's like a land surveyor describing property.

Sounds like not a blast to read, but great for the people writing the movies and designing the sets

i liked them, cuz i like fantasy, rpg and epicness

...

They were great movies, perfect for minds that never matured past 13 years old.

Wife and I watched them all right after the 3rd one came out on TV. She didn't give a damn about them back then and didn't even remember we watched them because they were so long and boring.
Fast forward about a decade and she doesn't believe we actually watched them so we watched them again. They're long and boring but she loves them anyway because she's a damn normie.

They were long and boring.

The only good thing was Viggo. He's usually good.

The books: I've read a lot of garbage, but tolkien is a special level of refuse.

The books are even longer and more boring.

unaffected in that it does corrupt him like other, not that he can not use it's power.

I meant it does not corrupt him

I get the long, but there's a ton of action and war scenes, is it just uninteresting action?

Books are better, also Silmarillion is fantastic

huh I never noticed the environment descriptions that much, didn't seem excessive to me, just enough to set up the locations.

Could it be the case that the literary universe is more interesting than the stories themselves?

You're lucky I don't have the e-books on my computer. I would post the part where they flee the shire and when they flee Bree too. There is a fuck-tonne of description.

Yeah, to me action and war scenes don't automatically make a story interesting. The Star Wars prequels had a lot of that and turned out badly.

Tolkien is a world builder and didn't seem to create characters that I personally found interesting enough to actually care about. I get why people love the world he made, it's deep and rich, but I don't understand getting into the actual story of Frodo's journey.

If you're looking for something in the same fantasyish vein without all the boring then I can't recommend Magician (Raymond Feist) enough.

To be fair to Tolkien, LOTR was not initially meant for public consumption. He said he aspirations in writing the story was linguistic/historic. And he wanted to send his son, who was fighting a war in South America at the time, a book to pass the time in the jungle.
Persons later convinced him to publish them.

...

Wow, a lot more devisive opinions than I expected. I thought everyone jerked this series off hard

They have their moments. But they suffer from being both too long and not long enough at the same time. That is, they significantly abridge the books and discard a lot of their richness in the process, but even with what they discard, they wind up being way too fucking long. For me, at least, it's easier to read a long book than watch a long movie, because I find it easier to put a book down and come back to it than to watch a movie in, say, hour increments.

If you want a pretty funny (and accurate) summary of the movies, though, watch Randal's rant in Clerks 2.

I think they actually addressed that in the books. Bombadil is extremely powerful, but only in his own domain. Outside of it, he ain't shit. Also, they considered leaving the ring with him there, but even with his power in his own area, they figured he would succumb to Sauron eventually after Sauron got through with Gondor, Rohan, etc.

...

He already had a job as a professor. So money wasn't the reason he published it.