Peter Jackson passed over for The Hobbit and LOTR Prequel by New Line

[Proletariat]

It wasn't the accents alone. The jarring pastel look I remember most of the scenes having coupled with a story I've never thought much of set up the accents to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The story was written with more emphasis on the setting than a character plot or action plot, and I could never really get past that. As a movie it seemed even more silly, imho.

Anyway, I'll bid the thread adieu before I burn too many bridges by insulting such a Orgah popular film, but none of you Tolkein fanboys are ever allowed to make fun of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood if you think accents are such a minor issue in making a decent film.

Edit: AdrianII: Salacious names, eh? PM plz!11

[Dutch_guy]

I never quite understood why they didn't just fly the hobbits over mount doom and just threw the Ring in it. That said, I enjoyed the books a lot, and the movies too. Frodo, however, got on my nerves in all three of the movies which is a shame, since he isn't half as irritating and...feminine... in the books.

[naut]

Frodo, however, got on my nerves in all three of the movies which is a shame, since he isn't half as irritating and...feminine... in the books.

With his squeaking and groaning! GAH! Irritating .

[Adrian II]

Edit: AdrianII: Salacious names, eh? PM plz!11

They would suffer all too grievously in translation, mylady.
Suffice it to say that they involve the exploitation of Mr Potter's manly parts and fundament in ways that would be contrary to the spirit of childrens' amusement.

[Incongruous]

What Kevin Costner used in Robin Hood was no accent.
'Twas an abomination unto Nuggin!

[Reverend Joe]

The first movie was the only good one. Frankly, the really, really, REALLY gay overtones with the hobbits got old very fast, and the lack of blood completely ruined the rest of the series. But the first was a decent, entertaining adventure movie.

The books, by the way, start out well, but they turn into the freakin' bible halfway through. it makes them unreadable.

[ajaxfetish]

I very much enjoyed both the books and the films. The way it looks like New Line is heading now, it seems I won't be seeing the Hobbit afterall. A shame.

Ajax

[scotchedpommes]

Frankly, the really, really, REALLY gay overtones with the hobbits got old very fast...

and

With his squeaking and groaning! GAH! Irritating .

...would be the other aspects that began to niggle away, I have to say.

[Beirut]

Oh come on, the movies weren't that bad at all, they were a lot of fun. Big story, big environment, lots of characters, epic battles, good vs.evil and all that rot. I watched all three a few weekends ago while it rained and rained outside. Great diversion.

Unless we dug up Eisenstein and asked him to direct the LOTR trilogy with a cast of a million Russians (which would have been great!), I'm not sure anyone could have done better than Jackson.

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I didn't think they sucked, they were fun. But as far as that genre goes (which genre is it really btw?), "The Mummy" or "Pirates" were much better. You can laugh at bad dialogue without thinking it was meant to be serious. LOTR lacks in humor and females, and takes itself to seriously. Of course in a way those aren't legitimate criticisms because they are made from books, but they do make the movies less enjoyable.

[Beirut]

(which genre is it really btw?)

Hmm, good question.

Epic fantasy?

[Adrian II]

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..

My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.

My oldest is firmly into Harry Potter, which is to say he loves the hype of there being always a next book, another film, another computer game around Harry, always a new 'curse' you can cast on your friends in the playground. But he also realises that the Potter stories are gone the moment you've read or seen them. However, six months later is he still fascinated with the witch in Throne of Blood, Kurosawa's 'Hamlet', trying to imitate (and finally, truly understand) his incredibly beautiful, ethereal song... 'What is it that men strive for in this fleeting abode called life...'

[Red Peasant]

Sorry Adey, lah, but you really are a screaming snob.

I can imagine you inflicting existentialist-angst movies by Ingmar Strindberg and baffling, French Art-House flicks on your kids even while they were still in the womb.

I think crazy people like you are great, but I wouldn't have wanted you for a dad!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..

My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.

Yes, of course Kurosawa is going to be better than LOTR. But there's more to movies than drama. Shallow movies can be plenty enjoyable, I find people who hate them as odd as people who refuse to watch movies that have subtitles.

[The Wizard]

I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.

Now, I thought the movies were pretty damn reasonable, but:

Try Musa [The Warrior], a flick from South Korea. Not quite as large a scale as LOTR's, but the money they spent on SFX (and hence large scale) in LOTR they spent on good actors and a decent script. Once again, don't expect a piece of art evoking true emotions, but the atmosphere of senseless carnage caused by the pride of a few men is moving, to a point.

Alternatively, try Sword in the Moon, another South Korean movie. Not as good as Musa in my book, but others might like it better.

On the books... I read the trilogy, and stopped there. It took me two years, if not three. Compare that to that time in weeks it took me to get through George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, of which Book Three is almost as large as the trilogy's 1244 pages in the Dutch translation (strangely I read this one in Dutch, something I don't often do with books) alone, and you know what attitude I have towards LOTR.

Tolkien shines in creating a world, and the historical appendices of the trilogy were probably my favorite part -- but he fails in breathing life into it, IMO. This is my main gripe with LOTR: the characters simply do not develop, and basically remain secondary to the world -- flat characters. Unacceptable to anything considering itself a story, or even literature.

[Motep]

They were good books, and decent enough movies.

However, the books were alot better than the movies, and what the HELL did they do to Frodo?

[The Stranger]

I dont know if someone read the Silmarillion... that is quite good... its a bit biblical but its good... I never liked the hobbit or the Fellowship, i thought The Two Towers were great untill i actually read it and i felt largely dissapointed... Two Towers movie was oke... better than Harry Potter 3&4 wherein he is basicly a big whining he killed my daddy loser... which i hated... I liked Helmsdeep battle scene but that basicly was it... though i never mind watching it but i wanna see it again to make up my mind

[caravel]

The Silmarillion is really background and plot material, put together into a single volume by Tolkien's son. It contains the plot for which to base a good novel, but the only actual "story" in the book is the tale of Turin Turambar.

Whatever you say about Tolkien's work, it is highly imaginitive, and I feel leaves it open to the reader to actually form their own opinions and conceptions of the various characters.

At the end of the day though this is a fantasy novel, and this is often how fantasy novels tend to turn out. This is a story on a global scale, not a personal one, so going through an entire chapter of bonking hobbits, or a stressed wizard's family life, seems rather irrelevant on such a scale. This type of book is ok for some people and not for others. The characters in LOTR and the Silmarillion are not black and white (There are many supposedly good characters that show a weak and bad side. They are not all saints and sinners.) but whether you actually like these books or not often is.

[Gregoshi]

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.

[caravel]

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.

I've read The Hobbit, LOTR, the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. I first read the Hobbit, probably about 20 years ago, and LOTR and the Silmarillion soon after. Unfinished Tales, I picked up a few years back. I was a hardcore Tolkien fan, reading the books through over and over, and I still think his books are brilliant classics, but I'm no longer as enthralled as I was back then, and I do find them rather "biblical" and self indulgent in places. The novelty wears off eventually I suppose.

[The Stranger]

I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.

That's exactly what i think too... the first part when Melkor rebels is rather boring and its more like the Creation than a story... but when the elves come into the story it starts to get interesting.