Lord of the Rings the movies, overrated?

As Lightwizard has already said, this subject has been done to death on these boards. I do think, however, that a familiarity with the books is important for enjoyment of the films. Taken totally out of context -- i.e. with no reference to their source -- the films seem too much like extremely well done sword-and-shield melodramas with too much breast-beating overacting. To those of us for whom the trilogy is iconic, this was a superb job of bringing the Fourth Age of Middle Earth to life.

My sister and brother-in-law and my niece and her husband never read the books and love the movies. The fact is, the movies have spurred a huge sales boost for the books.

Fantasy is just obviously not everyone's cup-of- tea -- that bias cannot be applied to three films that will easily be classics and unlikely ever outdone. The closest is the original "Star Wars" trilogy of movies, but that has a weak final chapter that's really a rehash of the first -- oh, wow, they did away with another Death Star! These movies were designed for one to be on a higher level than the last. The characters were all written to be larger than life and , yes, even considering the stature of the hobbits. "The Hobbit" was a charming fantasy story, LOTR a monumental fantasy epic -- the central book is the core of the story and I have to say my favorite of the three books.

Ah well. I did try to read the first book after I saw the first movie, and it was to me better than the movie, although there were too much details for a book. It would have been cool for them to put Tom Bombadil in the movie, since he's such a mysterious and a bit eerie character (at least he was to me since I don't even think he's human, but it's good that he helps people).

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for the book and I do like fantasy novels, but what I can't stand in the movie is that it does seem overdone. I don't know, I can't really explain it... Also it bugs me how that elf-girl talks.

That's all rather amorphous, seems to be overdone. I didn't find anything overdone and the usual complaint is that some things were underdone, especially in the first film. Tom Bombadil is a pretty drastic side storyline that I couldn't see being in the movie. It would definitely hamper the flow and try the average movie audience's patience. When I first read the books, the detail was fascinating. On the re-reading, it was not so fascinating. I was actually surprised that I enjoyed the movie so much considering the story is fairly well implanted in my mind. The details about all the characters in the book "The Two Towers" are really essential -- there's much more of an establishment of characterization. The sections with the Ents and the Riders of Rohan are enthralling reading. My Mom even read the books and has told people she could not put them down. I'm not sure that seeing the movie doesn't spoil reading the books -- I'd think putting a couple of years between the films and reading the books might be a good thing.

An interesting aside. The elf language is based on Finnish. I mentioned this to my ex wife who came from Finland. She told me it's one of the purest languages anywhere although noe techno language is creeping in.

I thought that only Legolas got the feel of the elfish language more than the other actors. When Aragon talked in elfish it sounded forced, and when that elf-girl talked in elfish it sounded like she's trying too hard. Might just be me though.

I didn't perceive that any of the actors had trouble with the elvish. It all sounded rather musical and I'm sure there was more than one take (like to see the outtakes on those scenes!)

Elven Language


There are actually two elven languages. One is based on Russian and the other on Finnish. If you pay careful attention to how the Rivendell elves and the Mirkwood elves speak, you can tell the difference.

Frodo (ARGHH!)
The only problem I had with the movieswas how they turned the character of Frodo into this week little hobbit. He has a lot more sense, logic, and intelligence, not to mention strength, in the books.

My favourite parts of it were the battle scenes. They were amazing. And the part where Pippin sings nearly brought me to tears.

Never read the books. Saw all three movies when they came out. Enjoyed them thouroughly, but have little interest in revisiting the world, and will not be buying the DVDs. I suspect that for me at least, repeated viewings would lessen rather than enhance the initial experience.

Those with shorter attention spans might want to check out Canadian performer Charles Ross, who does either the Star Wars or LOTR trilogies in one hour apiece:

http://www.pkfproductions.com/charles.html

Always loved the books ,read them when they first came out. My fifteen old daughter is a very keen LOTR fan and we attended a LOTR convention in London in August, met and talked to the some of the actors who appeared in the films , but the most fascinating people were Alan lee and John Howe , they were the main conceptive artists on the films.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I adored the entire LOTR trilogy and I have never been one to be a huge fantasy fan. Everything about the film transported me into a world unlike any other and I sat mesmerized and was sorely disappointed when the first movie came to an end, knowing I would have to wait an entire year to see the next. I was left feeling the same way after seeing the second. And even more interesting I was actually very sad when the last one did come out, because then I knew I would not have that same feeling of anticipation and excitement to await me the next year.

I did have one very wonderful LOTR Fellowship of the Ring experience though. At one point, I had a friend visiting me from Australia and every night before bed, he read outloud to me from Fellowship of the Ring. He visited for 3 months and 2 days before his departure home, he finished reading the first book to me.

It was fabulous.

It has a fantastic story.

So very true ^JB^....

It allowed me to detach from my everyday and dream.......

I think it's the creation of another complete world where problems that are surmounted are much greater than our own. At least I haven't had any Dark Riders after me lately. I disagree that Fordo is made meeker in the film version -- there were many more places in the book where he was spiritually pounded down and ready to give up.

Lightwizard,

I previously made negative comments on this thread about the first film in the trilogy. Why did the battles with monsters in the last half of the film seem so repetitive? Was this related to the actual first book in the trilogy? (Unfortunately, I attempted to read the books but gave up.)

I wanted to hate Harry Potter and love Lord of the rings.It turned out the other way round.

LOtR had great effects and looked brilliant but I just didnt get hooked.
Harry Potter was so much fun,looking out for things like the paintings being alive and floating candles etc.

One thing I have to say is that in LOtR I LOVED THE ORCS.Which film do they appear in the most?

The first film in the trilogy is, like the other two, a story within itself with a climax but leaving one to anticipate the next part. The books were similarly released a year at a time with the final book released early because of fan letters arriving at the publisher. I'm not sure what you mean about the battles with the "monsters" being repetitive. The creatures under the control of Sauron evolved and more threatening as he (or it) became stronger through the three books and Jackson observed this in the films. The greatest of the winged creatures at the end was actually invisible at the beginning of the final battle. It is difficult for some to get "hooked" on the first book but once you are, the more rewarding books I and II become as the tale unfolds and becomes more complex. The Ents my be my favorite characters and I feel they were accurately dipicted by Jackson. I don't go to films preparing to hate them but the first two "Harry Potter" films were disposable for me although I did get involved with the third film with its darker themes.

I've stated it before but LOTR has to be considered as one over 12 hour movie (the extended versions reveal more about the characters and their motivation). I would still enjoy reading "The Two Towers" again over the other two parts.

Lightwizard,

Thanks for your explanation. The monster battles seemed repetitive to me because I did not finish reading the first book and because I personally have difficulty understanding fantasy fiction.

My sixteen year old son is a huge LOTR fan and has read everything that Tolkien wrote. I can always borrow his books and attempt to read the trilogy again.

You left off at the wrong time -- I'd plow on and finish book one and turn to "The Two Towers" which really begins the epic scope of the story. Book one is on the conventional side but the other two volumes are really mind expanding. I can see how many have found parables in modern history even if Tolkien didn't have that in mind. Actually, it's the passage of time comparing the battles with creatures in the book and those in the film. You can't read one volume in three hours unless you're a Class A speed reader. I wouldn't want to speed read the books as there are many scenes one wants to savor the images and the characterizations Tolkien is creating. My Mom had a bit of trouble getting through the last book! She loves the work but the Gollum started to get to her (actually, I feel Gollum is handled much better in the film than in the books as Tolkien tends to dwell on his eccentricities!)