8 ms·

I just finished watching these movies for the first time literally hours ago. They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. The whole m

I just finished watching these movies for the first time literally hours ago. They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. The whole movie was long flowing landscape shots with music swells and battles that were boring. There was no discernible plot, just elves walking and occasionally running or flying in the forest, or a field sometimes. The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. The movie lurched from set piece to set piece and lacked the connective tissue of storytelling. In the modern vernacular, the whole movie is payoffs with no setups. Go ahead, burn my account down :-)

nescioquid 5y ago
Here's more fuel for the fire. My personal reduction of Jackson's realization of the novels is a group of hobbits looking at each other with an over-abundance of weariness. I sort of took it as the editor's sympathy with the audience.
WeAreWhatWeEat 5y ago
Yeah, imma go ahead and pour some gas and light the torch. Those movies are amazing. And flaws aside, great cinematic storytelling. Seeing them in the theaters as a teen is a memory I’ll hold forever, and watching them every year or two on my tv is always enjoyable. To each their own but man, I love those movies!
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Because you were a teen when you were seduced, I suggest you stay the torch and consider you are reacting just as though someone said something insulting about "yo mama".
aliswe 5y ago
Wanna comment on those 17 oscars though?
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Industry awards only exist to validate the taste of the masses :-)
  - wyattpeak 5y ago
    Unlike big-budget films, which are notoriously aimed only at nitpicking fans.
sonofhans 5y ago
I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an opportunity to streeeetch a scene out with fake tension, or to mock one of his characters, or to bolt on some flashy but empty set piece.
- Victerius 5y ago
  This is, like, the opposite of what most LOTR fans think. It's a novel perspective...
  - sonofhans 5y ago
    Example: the fellowship is fleeing the Balrog in the Mines of Moria. Gandalf makes his stand and is whipped by the Balrog, and falls to the edge of the precipice. The Balrog’s whip coils up from below, wraps his ankle, and drags him down to the depths as he cries, “Fly, you fools!” Unless you’re Peter Jackson, in which case Gandalf (a) falls on his own accord, with no whip around his ankle, and (b) whispers, which sounds nice on camera, but wouldn’t be heard by his fellowship. The movie is chock-full of this bullshit. Now, I’m not upset that Jackson deviated from the book, although I do notice — I’ve been reading LOTR since I was 9, and did research on Tolkien in graduate school. My problem is that many of his changes make things worse. Yes, he got some things right, but the consistency of his flaws just grates on me. Faramir, for instance: in the book he does the right thing, and lets Frodo and Sam leave unhindered. This is in clear contrast to his brother, and an important illustration of one of Tolkien’s core beliefs: the evil is a choice, not determined fate or destiny. In the movie, though, Faramir succumbs to the ring initially and leads the hobbits around for 15 minutes. I’m convinced that Jackson made this choice, and many others, only to pad runtime. He did the same thing to even worse effect in The Hobbit. And yet with all that padding, he left out The Scouring of the Shire, one of the most important parts of the book. Screw Tom Bombadil: he was fun, and his immunity to the ring is a great moment, but the story can live without him. Leaving out the Scouring though is an awful choice; it’s a lovely and concise illustration and recap of most of the books themes, and shows the character’s growth in a clear light.
crooked-v 5y ago
> just elves walking I feel like the lack of a hobbit mention here is sufficient evidence by itself that you weren't paying any attention at all.
fouc 5y ago
The movies adhered relatively closely to the books. The books have a lot of detail, so the movie required that too.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  My recollection is that the battle of Helm's Deep took place over a few pages, whereas the realization of the novel expanded that to (maybe) hours and offered a de novo romantic side-plot with the major character. Nabokov completely upended the narrative frame for the screen-play of Lolita he wrote for Kubrik, but he certainly did not inseminate it with pure pulp.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    It is longer in the movies but there are also lots of things in the books that are not in the movie. It makes sense to increase the battle scenes for a movie. And the romantic plots were in the book as well. Are you sure you are not mixing up Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit?
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      Yes, I'm referring to the overtime Aragorn serves as well as the battle mentioned. Proportion is important.
echelon 5y ago
> The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterwork on all counts. Its lore, world building, character development, thematic juxtapositions, and pacing are all incredible. If it has one pronounced flaw, it's that the denouement could stand as a film on its own, but taking it away would be an injustice. A film that failed to explain itself or the rules of its universe is Denis Villeneuve's Dune. That's the film to watch if you want a visual aid to the novels that has zero character development and is wholly a visual spectacle.
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Hey, you didn't hear me praising Dune.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Truth be told, I'm not a fan of how Ridley Scott took a scalpel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Getting rid of Mercerism and empathy boxes, Deckard's wife, the fallout, the android-run duplicate police station, the goat, and setting it in L.A. rather than the novella's native San Francisco...
- Tarsul 5y ago
  still, the new Dune explains itself better than the old Dune. Meaning the old Dune was even more whack (in every possible way) than the new one. Still, all these movies (Dune A and B and also LOTR) have one thing that makes them worthwhile: gorgeous visual world building.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
I've talked to some professional filmmakers who love the books and feel the same way. I disagree, but there are people who know what they're talking about that have similar thoughts.
Covzire 5y ago
I feel that way about the Hobbit trilogy which should have been at most 1 long movie. But LOTR was ground breaking on many levels and will probably never be surpassed in my lifetime. Amazon is making a LOTR TV series that I thoroughly expect I'll hate every second of but I'd love to be wrong, though my faith in the film industry is exceedingly low.
panick21_ 5y ago
> They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. Sure the movie that is closely based on one the most critically acclaimed and most sold stories in the world totally fails as story telling > The movie lurched from set piece to set piece and lacked the connective tissue of storytelling. Clearly you weren't paying attention. > just elves walking I really seems you were not paying attention. > The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. Its Epic Fantasy. Not like some modern fantasy where everything has to be based on quasi scientific rules. Not getting all the rules explained and discovering the world is part of the point. > In the modern vernacular, the whole movie is payoffs with no setups. I assume you were not watching the Extended Editions. There is plenty of setup there, but there is enough even in the cinematic edition (even when I haven't seen them in a decade).

nescioquid 5y ago

Here's more fuel for the fire. My personal reduction of Jackson's realization of the novels is a group of hobbits looking at each other with an over-abundance of weariness. I sort of took it as the editor's sympathy with the audience.

WeAreWhatWeEat 5y ago

Yeah, imma go ahead and pour some gas and light the torch. Those movies are amazing. And flaws aside, great cinematic storytelling. Seeing them in the theaters as a teen is a memory I’ll hold forever, and watching them every year or two on my tv is always enjoyable. To each their own but man, I love those movies!

nescioquid 5y ago
Because you were a teen when you were seduced, I suggest you stay the torch and consider you are reacting just as though someone said something insulting about "yo mama".

aliswe 5y ago

Wanna comment on those 17 oscars though?

oceanghost 5y ago
Industry awards only exist to validate the taste of the masses :-)
- wyattpeak 5y ago
  Unlike big-budget films, which are notoriously aimed only at nitpicking fans.

sonofhans 5y ago

I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an opportunity to streeeetch a scene out with fake tension, or to mock one of his characters, or to bolt on some flashy but empty set piece.

Victerius 5y ago
This is, like, the opposite of what most LOTR fans think. It's a novel perspective...
- sonofhans 5y ago
  Example: the fellowship is fleeing the Balrog in the Mines of Moria. Gandalf makes his stand and is whipped by the Balrog, and falls to the edge of the precipice. The Balrog’s whip coils up from below, wraps his ankle, and drags him down to the depths as he cries, “Fly, you fools!” Unless you’re Peter Jackson, in which case Gandalf (a) falls on his own accord, with no whip around his ankle, and (b) whispers, which sounds nice on camera, but wouldn’t be heard by his fellowship. The movie is chock-full of this bullshit. Now, I’m not upset that Jackson deviated from the book, although I do notice — I’ve been reading LOTR since I was 9, and did research on Tolkien in graduate school. My problem is that many of his changes make things worse. Yes, he got some things right, but the consistency of his flaws just grates on me. Faramir, for instance: in the book he does the right thing, and lets Frodo and Sam leave unhindered. This is in clear contrast to his brother, and an important illustration of one of Tolkien’s core beliefs: the evil is a choice, not determined fate or destiny. In the movie, though, Faramir succumbs to the ring initially and leads the hobbits around for 15 minutes. I’m convinced that Jackson made this choice, and many others, only to pad runtime. He did the same thing to even worse effect in The Hobbit. And yet with all that padding, he left out The Scouring of the Shire, one of the most important parts of the book. Screw Tom Bombadil: he was fun, and his immunity to the ring is a great moment, but the story can live without him. Leaving out the Scouring though is an awful choice; it’s a lovely and concise illustration and recap of most of the books themes, and shows the character’s growth in a clear light.

crooked-v 5y ago

> just elves walking I feel like the lack of a hobbit mention here is sufficient evidence by itself that you weren't paying any attention at all.

fouc 5y ago

The movies adhered relatively closely to the books. The books have a lot of detail, so the movie required that too.

nescioquid 5y ago
My recollection is that the battle of Helm's Deep took place over a few pages, whereas the realization of the novel expanded that to (maybe) hours and offered a de novo romantic side-plot with the major character. Nabokov completely upended the narrative frame for the screen-play of Lolita he wrote for Kubrik, but he certainly did not inseminate it with pure pulp.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  It is longer in the movies but there are also lots of things in the books that are not in the movie. It makes sense to increase the battle scenes for a movie. And the romantic plots were in the book as well. Are you sure you are not mixing up Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit?
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Yes, I'm referring to the overtime Aragorn serves as well as the battle mentioned. Proportion is important.

echelon 5y ago

> The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterwork on all counts. Its lore, world building, character development, thematic juxtapositions, and pacing are all incredible. If it has one pronounced flaw, it's that the denouement could stand as a film on its own, but taking it away would be an injustice. A film that failed to explain itself or the rules of its universe is Denis Villeneuve's Dune. That's the film to watch if you want a visual aid to the novels that has zero character development and is wholly a visual spectacle.

oceanghost 5y ago
Hey, you didn't hear me praising Dune.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Truth be told, I'm not a fan of how Ridley Scott took a scalpel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Getting rid of Mercerism and empathy boxes, Deckard's wife, the fallout, the android-run duplicate police station, the goat, and setting it in L.A. rather than the novella's native San Francisco...
Tarsul 5y ago
still, the new Dune explains itself better than the old Dune. Meaning the old Dune was even more whack (in every possible way) than the new one. Still, all these movies (Dune A and B and also LOTR) have one thing that makes them worthwhile: gorgeous visual world building.

TigeriusKirk 5y ago

I've talked to some professional filmmakers who love the books and feel the same way. I disagree, but there are people who know what they're talking about that have similar thoughts.

Covzire 5y ago

I feel that way about the Hobbit trilogy which should have been at most 1 long movie. But LOTR was ground breaking on many levels and will probably never be surpassed in my lifetime. Amazon is making a LOTR TV series that I thoroughly expect I'll hate every second of but I'd love to be wrong, though my faith in the film industry is exceedingly low.

panick21_ 5y ago

> They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. Sure the movie that is closely based on one the most critically acclaimed and most sold stories in the world totally fails as story telling > The movie lurched from set piece to set piece and lacked the connective tissue of storytelling. Clearly you weren't paying attention. > just elves walking I really seems you were not paying attention. > The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. Its Epic Fantasy. Not like some modern fantasy where everything has to be based on quasi scientific rules. Not getting all the rules explained and discovering the world is part of the point. > In the modern vernacular, the whole movie is payoffs with no setups. I assume you were not watching the Extended Editions. There is plenty of setup there, but there is enough even in the cinematic edition (even when I haven't seen them in a decade).