Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

LOTR trilogy is terribly overrated

  1. Feb 26, 2008 #1
    Roommate made me watch all 3 this past weekend. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:


    The first movie was extremely boring. The next two were just awful as well. I wanted to throw the remote at the TV after the 103948302948023984234 overhead flying shot.

    LOTR trilogy has got to be some of the most overrated set of films ever. CGI sucks.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 26, 2008 #2
    Oh, geez. You're not already into LOTR and someone made you watch all three of them in one weekend? I'm a fan, actually, but I feel for you.
     
  4. Feb 26, 2008 #3
    I, Elf Lord Moridin, banish you to the deep dungeons of to-tried-to-make-up-a-name.
     
  5. Feb 26, 2008 #4

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You've gone through this in the wrong sequence. First you READ the Hobbit, then you READ the Trilogy. Last you watch the movies and wonder how the writers, cinematographers, special-effects crews, set designers, etc managed to capture at least a portion of Tolkien's work.
     
  6. Feb 26, 2008 #5

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :grumpy: Hey, my dear friend made those movies and he visits here.

    A pox upon you!
     
  7. Feb 26, 2008 #6

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I second CQ's comment. I enjoyed the films, but can't imagine being forced to sit and watch the entire trilogy in a weekend!
     
  8. Feb 26, 2008 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The books had a better story. But they weren't as fun to read as the movies were to watch.
     
  9. Feb 26, 2008 #8
    50% of the movies could have been edited out from all of the running through fields in the hobbits' home to all of the useless overhead flying shots. Half the time there was simply a homosexual overtone running rampant (not saying it is bad).
     
  10. Feb 26, 2008 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Unless I have accumulated a massive personal debt with a person, I cannot imagine submitting to many hours of movie-watching to placate them. Methinks GNW dost protest too much.
     
  11. Feb 26, 2008 #10
    I watched all the Star Wars from 1-6 back to back straight. I kind of am a movie buff.
     
  12. Feb 26, 2008 #11
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  13. Feb 26, 2008 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hey, Hurk. In college, I borrowed the Hobbit from a dorm-mate. I read it in a day and immediately went out and bought a boxed set of the paperback version of the trilogy and burned the whole next weekend reading that. I've always regarded reading as a collaboration between the author and the reader, and have found it tremendously enjoyable. From age 10, when my parents bought a house with a large library of really cheaply-produced "classic" books, I started reading Verne, Dickens, Twain, Hawthorn, etc, etc.

    For a parallel, read Dune, then watch the movie. Read the Exorcist, then watch the movie. the books were by far superior.
     
  14. Feb 26, 2008 #13

    Kurdt

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Argh someone watched Star Wars 1-3. :eek:
     
  15. Feb 26, 2008 #14
    Yah. 1&2 were atrocious. 3 was OK. Then you have 4-6.
     
  16. Feb 26, 2008 #15

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have to admit the Elven songs and poetry in the books were too painful for me to read (bored my socks off) and I had to skip over them.
     
  17. Feb 26, 2008 #16

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  18. Feb 26, 2008 #17
    Ugh, no, don't. Dune was SO BORING I wanted to gouge my eyes out.

    The end had the battle scene, but I was SO disappointed when it was over in like a page and a half.
     
  19. Feb 26, 2008 #18
    I heard that the exorcist book is too scary to read.
     
  20. Feb 26, 2008 #19

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you're alone in an unfamiliar house (I was) and try to read it overnight, you might not get much sleep. That is a really horrifying novel.
     
  21. Feb 26, 2008 #20
    I saw The Exorcist for the first time just after I'd seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repossessed" [Broken] with Leslie Nielsen, a parody of it, so I couldn't stop laughing.

    I thought http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404032/" [Broken] was great and super-creepy, though.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  22. Feb 26, 2008 #21
    Yes, read the books. But I can summarize much of them into this: ride for many days, eat mutton, ride for many more days, get attacked, lick your wounds, eat mutton, ride for many days. I swear to god that all they eat is mutton in those books! I tried reading the Silmarilllion when I was about a 5th grader...Jesus I made it about an 1/8th in and gave up. Still haven't gone back and finished it. Tolkien was a great author, and really made this a real world. Thats basically what the Silmarillion is, the bible of LOTR. Theres actually a lot of other books explaining different time periods and such.
     
  23. Feb 26, 2008 #22

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Seriously, has anyone here even eaten mutton? OH....MY....DOG....horrible, horrible aftertaste that has lasted 30 YEARS!!

    ...URP...ugh. 'Scuse me.
     
  24. Feb 27, 2008 #23
    Really? How did you have it, lisab? I usually find that Greek restaurants and Persian restaurants do it up pretty nice.

    But maybe you got unlucky and had a black sheep of a chef cooking. (Sorry, that didn't really work. Maybe you just had some baa baaad mutton? I give up.)
     
  25. Feb 27, 2008 #24
    I read "The Hobbit" and found it tolerable, but not more. I abandoned LOTR after about 100 pages into the first volume. My opinion of Tolkien is that he is better at philology than he is at characterization and plot line. My wife loves the movies. They are among the few tapes we own and there was a time when she watched them over and over again. In my opinion the fans of Tolkien should be in up in arms over the lousy acting in that film, especially the roles of Frodo and Sam Gamgee. Anyone who saw the interview of Elija Wood (Frodo) on late night TV (Jay Leno I think it was), the "p*ss and sh*t" episode, will realize that there is something missing in the man.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2008
  26. Feb 27, 2008 #25

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The ratio is much higher in the books. Not that there's anything wrong with it! Actually, it is a particularly unique English male bond-in-wartime theme. That's how it was described to me, anyway.

    I enjoyed the movies for the most part. I was nearly screaming at the end of the third film "GET ON THE F****** SHIP!" They scratched the best part of the books (Scouring of the Shire) in favor of the dull denouement of the Grey Havens.

    Also the battle scenes were too long, and the physics of the Humans with trebuchets and a height advantage losing agains orcs in a valley with catapults... that just annoyed me.

    But hellyeah, watching 9+ hours of a movie in one weekend, that's too much unless you are in a body cast.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook