1. Welcome to NoFap! We have disabled new forum accounts from being registered for the time being. In the meantime, you can join our weekly accountability groups.
    Dismiss Notice

All the problems with lord of the rings

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Deleted Account, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. Alright guys, im a big fan of the lord of the rings books, i think they were masterpieces. The movies on the other hand were way over rated, so here are my complaints...

    Samwise cries like a baby for two movies straight
    Aragorn is a nasaly sounding wimp
    Borimir is the coolest human character (we're not even supposed to like him)
    Gandalf looks like a sissy when he becomes gandalf the white
    Faramir is tempted by the ring (in the book he was always cool and never tempted), not to mention he is also a nasaly sounding wimp
    Gollum didnt look scary or creepy enough
    The whole tone of the movie is too real and dark instead of magical and elegant
    Tom bombidil was left out (one of the best characters in the book)
    Arwen is annoying and given way too much of a role

    Im sure there are others, but thats it for now. Sorry for ranting, but it needed to be said.


    Side note, sean connery was offered the role of gandalf first (weird right)
     

  2. I agree with all of that. They were never going to be able to make movies that did justice to the books though, which I read many times before the movies were even a twinkle in Peter Jackson's eye. I had mixed feelings about seeing the movies, though I lined up with everyone else to see them, because I knew they would kill the images I had of that universe. And that's exactly what happened.

    I wonder what someone like Tim Burton would have done with the story.

    Something else that springs to mind:

    In the books Saruman went back to The Shire, and Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin had to deal with him there. He was called Sharkey, which was from the orc word Sharku which meant old man. (from memory).

    To be fair though the movies are monumentally long (maybe should have been a TV series) and I might have even groaned if they added that to the end.
     
  3. True. It will surely be very interesting to see what kind of content Amazon will give us in the near future, now that they have bought the rights to the LOTR-verse. I just hope that the quality will be good. Would love to see a more magical/mystical interpretation. Although it's unlikely, but maybe they will even try to tell Tom Bombadil's and the Sharky-story somehow, who knows.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  4. I didnt know that amazon got the rights. That could be interesting if done correctly. Im glad you agree about the mystical magical aspect. The movies were too dark and brooding.
     
  5. It is what it is, I read the books and liked them both. But honestly prefer the films and growing up that's all I used to watch, they still remain my favourite movies of all time.

    And I'm glad they were dark for me as they suited the style way better, otherwise I feel the tone would of been like the 1978 LoRT film. Blah.
     

  6. The 1978 lotr film did suck, but i love the hobbit (1977) and the return of the king (1980). Also, despite my complaints, i dont hate the movie trilogy, i just think it could have been much better.
     
  7. I agree, Peter Jackson's LOTR-movies are superb(the Hobbit-movies were a big letdown for me), one of my favorite trilogies indeed. But I feel like Tom Bombadil as a character would've either felt way different or out of place in his movies. I think that character needed to be saved for later, for someone else to tell about him.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.

  8. That is a very good point actually and in a way its my point too. Tom bombidil would have been out of place, but for me that just proves my point. In the Lotr i want to see he wouldnt have been.
     
  9. The Hobbit movies were a mess and I really didn't like them, there's too many reasons to list why but overall it was such a dissapointment after coming from his LoTR movies.

    Yeah I'm not sure on Bombadil, at least they were faithful to a lot from the book, and either way whenever I see a film adpation I try not to judge or compare too much because I would end up critiquing everything. lol
     
  10. yaaarp

    yaaarp Fapstronaut

    47
    218
    33
    I actually prefer the films to the books, which is unusual for me. Tolkien might have created a world like no other, but he also liked to waffle on a bit too much for my liking.

    In terms of the stuff that was left out, you have to bear in mind the need to get the films down to a reasonable running time (the extended version of the Return of the King was still 4 hours long....)

    Tom Bombadil, for example, didn't really add much to the plot other than mystery - in a film that would be regarded as a loose end more than anything else. It made sense from a film-making point of view to remove him.

    I hated the scouring of the shire in the books - the hobbits had journeyed across the known world, faced the Nazgul, marched with armies in the heart of Mordor itself in an attempt to save the world itself. And then having to go home and basically kick out a gang of thugs seems a bit of an underwhelming end to the story.

    I hated the never-ending ending of the Return of the King, mind, so theres that.

    The republican in me cheered the change in Aragorns character in the film - in the book he seeks to become King to prove himself, whereas in the film he doesn't want to become king. Theres a not-too-subtle air of 'isn't monarchy great' in the books that I find troubling.
     
    Deleted Account likes this.
  11. That was bloody rubbish, I hated that and when Frodo nonchalantly sold Bag End to the Sackville-Bagginses in the beginning. At least I didn't have to see that in the movie.
     

Share This Page