• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 28, 2017
13,691
This used to be one of my favorite trilogies ever but I revisited them recently and I found that they are boring, meandering, drawn out and self-indulgent.

This is a 10+ hour series that consists of endless roaming and travelling. The plot is stretched across three movies and nothing really "new" or interesting happens other than the fellowship travelling across Middle Earth and escaping the clutches of the "enemy." They travel, they fight, some characters live and some characters die. Armies clash, and clash again. Sméagol is good, smeagol is bad. Will he or won't he? How long did they draw this out? Did anyone really think he was going to turn out good? There are sequences that go on endlessly. Like Shelob. How long is that scene? Does PJ have to stretch out EVERY scene? There is so little narrative and plot that moments and scenes in this move are always stretched to the extreme. He also repeatedly employs the same framing device: the camera pushes in on an actor and then that actor narrates a scene or explains the plot. This happens with Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Faramir. Wash, rinse, repeat. If you watch the extended editions, this is even more egregious and almost impossible to get through. I think by the time I got to ROTK, the constant use of this same "device" just broke me. And then I had to sit through yet another battle of clashing CGI armies. And then yet another drawn out fight between Sam, Frodo and Sméagol for possession of the ring. Endless slow mo, endless fighting back and forth, push ins on Frodo's struggle with the power of the ring. Etc etc. I don't see any way this trilogy can justify its ultimate running time.
 
OP
OP
Deleted member 21339
Oct 28, 2017
13,691
This used to be one of my favorite trilogies ever but I revisited them recently and I found that they are boring, meandering, drawn out and self-indulgent.

This is a 10+ hour series that consists of endless roaming and travelling. The plot is stretched across three movies and nothing really "new" or interesting happens other than the fellowship travelling across Middle Earth and escaping the clutches of the "enemy." They travel, they fight, some characters live and some characters die. Armies clash, and clash again. Sméagol is good, smeagol is bad. Will he or won't he? How long did they draw this out? Did anyone really think he was going to turn out good? There are sequences that go on endlessly. Like Shelob. How long is that scene? Does PJ have to stretch out EVERY scene? There is so little narrative and plot that moments and scenes in this move are always stretched to the extreme. He also repeatedly employs the same framing device: the camera pushes in on an actor and then that actor narrates a scene or explains the plot. This happens with Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond, Faramir. Wash, rinse, repeat. If you watch the extended editions, this is even more egregious and almost impossible to get through. I think by the time I got to ROTK, the constant use of this same "device" just broke me. And then I had to sit through yet another battle of clashing CGI armies. And then yet another drawn out fight between Sam, Frodo and Sméagol for possession of the ring. Endless slow mo, endless fighting back and forth, push ins on Frodo's struggle with the power of the ring. Etc etc. I don't see any way this trilogy can justify its ultimate running time.
 

BeforeU

Banned for use of alt account
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,936
tell me your fav movie ever and I can summarize in couple of lines and make it sound boring too
 

TheBeardedOne

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,189
Derry
I haven't watched them in years, but remember liking the trilogy quite a bit as a whole. The first episode was my favourite, due to all of the character development, better quality and because it's a really good starting point. The others were quite good as well, but definitely had a bit of meandering to them. The third one is drawn out.

The third Hobbit movie sucked, was boring and was really drawn out. I'd say it's the most egregious. The Hobbit was only turned into 3 movies for money, though, I'm sure, and that led to the quality.
 
Oct 25, 2017
29,502
I actually kinda felt that way about Fellowship originally(besides the climax) other 2 not so much.
To the point I haven't rewatched Fellowship specifically since the release of ROTK.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,116
When the special edition DVDs came out coworkers use to invite me for an all day marathons, I took that as a threat.
 

iFirez

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,579
England
I watched a single cut of all three movies in one a couple of years back and man it was blisteringly fast; nothing beats the extended editions for me though. I love the world and the characters so much to just see it jet past in an hour or two.
 

Deleted member 12224

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,113
pS20VRZ.gif
 

jelly

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
33,841
Then you get the Hobbit which is absolute trash.

I couldn't watch the LOTR films again but first time they are okay, progressively worse, Fellowship is the best.

I remember shitting a brick when I dozed off watching the extended version and awoke briefly when the elf edler did her scary face thing. Nearly died.
 
OP
OP
Deleted member 21339
Oct 28, 2017
13,691
I watched a single cut of all three movies in one a couple of years back and man it was blisteringly fast; nothing beats the extended editions for me though. I love the world and the characters so much to just see it jet past in an hour or two.

How many times can you watch a close up of Frodo struggling with the power of the ring and it feel tense n dramatic
 

potam

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
565
I hate the movies as adaptations, but I can still say that they are triumphs of film. Just watch the behind the scenes stuff. The amount of effort, attention, and love that was poured into them is incredible.

BUT OF COURSE PJ HAD TO MAKE LEGOLAS SURF DOWN THE FUCKING STAIRS AND COMPLETELY CHANGED FARAMIR.

edit: oh wait, I can kind of see how you'd find them long and boring
 

Eldy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,192
Maryland
So is the plot of the movies nothing but endless roaming and traveling, or do armies clash again and again?

Sméagol is good, smeagol is bad. Will he or won't he? How long did they draw this out?

...Not that long? The will-he-or-won't-he subplot with Gollum is introduced like a third of the way through TTT and is resolved by the end of the film.
 

Froyo Love

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,503
How many times can you watch a close up of Frodo struggling with the power of the ring and it feel tense n dramatic
If the same scene structure repeats, the intent of the author is not to be "tense and dramatic" since the audience already understands what's happening. The purpose is to bring dread about the inevitable succumbing. The marshaling and power of evil in the movie is all the same dread.

If you think it's uninteresting that's a question of taste but don't try to make it a critique.
 

Rogue Blue

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
2,280
I consider Lord of the Rings to be the greatest movie trilogy ever made...and yet, I can completely understand the critique on its length.

It is very daunting, and is a big reason I don't watch it very often. When I do; however, it's worth every minute.
 

Ryuelli

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,209
I feel that way about both the books and the movies, LOTR has never grabbed me as a series.

The cinematography is amazing though, the story might not interest me but man those pretty landscapes sure do.
 

BKatastrophe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
13,359
Except they're the best though
How many times can you watch a close up of Frodo struggling with the power of the ring and it feel tense n dramatic
Literally every time because it's not the exact same scene every time.
I hate the movies as adaptations, but I can still say that they are triumphs of film. Just watch the behind the scenes stuff. The amount of effort, attention, and love that was poured into them is incredible.

BUT OF COURSE PJ HAD TO MAKE LEGOLAS SURF DOWN THE FUCKING STAIRS AND COMPLETELY CHANGED FARAMIR.

edit: oh wait, I can kind of see how you'd find them long and boring
Legolas surfing down stairs shooting arrows is boss as hell.
 

aliengmr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,419
This used to be one of my favorite trilogies ever but I revisited them recently and I found that they are boring, meandering, drawn out and self-indulgent.

This is a 10+ hour series that consists of endless roaming and travelling.

Seriously, the books were way worse. But that is what he was adapting. Jackson gets shit for cutting out the most useless and meandering stuff still.
 

Restored

Member
Oct 27, 2017
66
I was expecting insightful detailed analysis of how the film plot changes cheapened the narrative of the books or how PJ missed some of the most important themes for dramatic shots. What we got was a take that was pretty subjective and reductive and quite honestly meandered more than frodo and Sam did.

These films are widely considered masterpieces in film making and the novels are the second most read books in the world behind the Bible. Disliking them is your opinion, but you need to come harder than this if you want to do anything more than a drive by thread.
 

Deleted member 30411

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 3, 2017
1,516
We are not doing this again after last week.
I wish they'd cut all the boring shots of buildings and talking out of most films actually. Or I wish they'd just start the action sequence and then cut to the hero winning because that's the likeliest odds (actually, that's the hobbit ma bad)
The only time when cutting to action scenes works is in porn.
Pacing and worldbuilding is extremely important in films to build tension and yeah, there's gotta be nice payoffs and denouement and all of that in between the fighty bits. Dialogue to get you to build rapport with characters and emotional bonds and all.

This is the equivalent of saying "Luke got told his dad had a saber. Cut to vader fight in ROTJ. The rest is just filler. I'm not trying to see all of this inbetween nonsense."

my man is looking for the 5 second film channel or really wants vine to make a comeback

EDIT: Why didn't marvel just start with the second part of infinity war?
 
Last edited:

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,197
How many times can you watch a close up of Frodo struggling with the power of the ring and it feel tense n dramatic

Frodo's struggling with the ring's power is a major piece of the story though. Why is a closeup during this moment bad? Should the camera zoom out to a bird's eye view instead?
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,543
What I want to know is: Aragorn literally solo'd the Nazgûl in FOTR. Frodo and the gang outran their horses while being chased on foot. When the hobbits got safely on the raft, you can see them racing along the banks but apparently they can't keep up with a small raft? Then they upgraded to wyverns and we're supposed to believe they're suddenly competent? They're cartoon villains in ROTK.
 
Oct 27, 2017
21,545
You're boring and meandering, OP. /jk
Seriously though, I think Peter Jackson, the movie writers, and the cast did a pretty bang up job on this series, one of my all-time favorites. Of course the books were better but I can hardly think of any movie that was better than the book(s) it was based on.
 

Disco

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,451
great movies, the soundtracks from Howard Shore are among the best film scores ever as well.

despite this being such a good collaborative effort I can't help but think that not recasting Stuart Townsend with Viggo for Aragorn would have brought the whole thing down. He's the MVP of the fellowship.
 

legend166

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,113
This is almost worse than the thread with the guy who couldn't understand the concept of light being visible in darkness.