The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (Prime)

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

It pales in comparison to the fantastic lord of the rings trilogy. Half the characters shouldn't be in it, but are shoehorned in because they are popular. I couldn't bring myself to watch them again.

Come on lets not forget the LOTR also had changes, additions, removals etc. As said before you wonder how many people actually remember the books.

The hobbit was after all a childrens book. If it was true to form it would be better made as a single film by disney.

The other books would be more like a sketch show as opposed to a film/series with new characters every 10 minutes and no build up or character development.

 

[Darujhistan]

There were moments of excellence in the hobbit trilogies, rescuing Gandalf at Dol Goldur, Smaug, Bilbo and Gollum, Thorin and the Arkenstone. Just few and far between. I still enjoyed them for what they were, think they would have been a lot better if PJ had the project from it's inception.

The initial "project" was they were going to film The Hobbit and also a couple of films from the Lore and tie them together in a trilogy, instead they just made a ludicrously bloated Hobbit, that as usual no-one but the studio wanted. I don't blame PJ at all, why would I? the guy had already made the greatest film trilogy of all-time.

Instead we got slapstick, a dwarf/elf love-story that made everyone vomit, some awful CGI, OTT action sequences and a slim tale scraped over way too much bread.

 

[Darujhistan]

Come on lets not forget the LOTR also had changes, additions, removals etc. As said before you wonder how many people actually remember the books.

The hobbit was after all a childrens book. If it was true to form it would be better made as a single film by disney.

The other books would be more like a sketch show as opposed to a film/series with new characters every 10 minutes and no build up or character development.

Yes but the changes worked, when you have a quality production, that is true to the spirit of Tolkien, all but the most ludicrous nerds are fine with changes made for narrative purposes. So it's the it's not as simple as LOTR was changed and the Hobbit was changed and that's means there's equivalence, because that's just not true, that is proven by the fact that people remember LOTR as an all-time classic and The Hobbit as a failure.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Yes but the changes worked, when you have a quality production, that is true to the spirit of Tolkien, all but the most ludicrous nerds are fine with changes made for narrative purposes. So it's the it's not as simple as LOTR was changed and the Hobbit was changed and that's means there's equivalence, because that's just not true, that is proven by the fact that people remember LOTR as an all-time classic and The Hobbit as a failure.

Your of course welcome to your own opinion but you really need to add the word some into your post since you make out like it was black and white and that no one liked the Hobbit films

And FWIW I think the changes to the hobbit were more necessary than in LOTR. For example why did the elven army going to helms deep add anything apart from the comedy surfing elf moment.
Totally unnecessary change to the book plot on both counts.

 

[fez]

Come on lets not forget the LOTR also had changes, additions, removals etc. As said before you wonder how many people actually remember the books.

The hobbit was after all a childrens book. If it was true to form it would be better made as a single film by disney.

The other books would be more like a sketch show as opposed to a film/series with new characters every 10 minutes and no build up or character development.

The LOTR did have changes etc but they were largely minor and were very faithful to the books in tone etc. The Hobbit was a mess that strung out a few hundred page book into 3 looong films.

Should have been a single film, perhaps 2 at a stretch and it shouldn't have had nearly as many junk CGI scenes and bad comedy. It was very much a film that would get made today by studio execs. "Put legolas in it, people like legolas. Oh and maybe there needs to be a love interest as well, do that. Oh and before I forget, do you remember one of the silliest scenes in LOTR where Legolas shield surfs? Dial that up to 11 for EVERY action sequence".

I've seen some of the scenes from the extended versions and they make the normal action scenes look positively sensible.

 

[Thekwango]

For example why did the elven army going to helms deep add anything apart from the comedy surfing elf moment.

ah, that was a woke moment before woke was a thing. it was to show we are all 'brothers', all best buds (humans and elves) and we should hold hands and sing along together in the face of a ferocious, evil enemy.

 

[Washout]

And FWIW I think the changes to the hobbit were more necessary than in LOTR. For example why did the elven army going to helms deep add anything apart from the comedy surfing elf moment.
Totally unnecessary change to the book plot on both counts.

Yeah, I dearly love the lotr movies but there were some things I’d have changed. That scene originally actually had Arwen leading the elves but an 11th hour change of mind removed her from it. Can still see her in the wider cgi shots on her horse.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The LOTR did have changes etc but they were largely minor and were very faithful to the books in tone etc. The Hobbit was a mess that strung out a few hundred page book into 3 looong films.

Should have been a single film, perhaps 2 at a stretch and it shouldn't have had nearly as many junk CGI scenes and bad comedy. It was very much a film that would get made today by studio execs. "Put legolas in it, people like legolas. Oh and maybe there needs to be a love interest as well, do that. Oh and before I forget, do you remember one of the silliest scenes in LOTR where Legolas shield surfs? Dial that up to 11 for EVERY action sequence".

I've seen some of the scenes from the extended versions and they make the normal action scenes look positively sensible.

They were largely minor, apart from the army, switching characters to get the love scene in early, cutting out Tom B etc. I suppose if you choose to ignore them
Again my point is, the LOTR trilogy needed far less changes, it was pretty close to a good script for the films, and thats my annoyance that the changes mainly didnt need to happen. As I said I get the impression many people think they were faithful reproductions.
And yes tone etc was good, it was an adult book made into an adult film.

The Hobbit was simply a completely different kettle of fish, it is base form it was completely unsuitable to be made into an adult film. Like I said Disney single film would have been better.

Its like when you read a book review of its as if a book was written by a completely different author, thats exactly like Hobbit vs LOTR.

Unfortunately I think your seeing the evolution of what sells. People liked the surfing scene, it was constantly commented on, and the non LOTR nerds loved it.
Again it comes back to who is the target audience, as much as its painful its not the nerds.
The Hobbit was aimed at the mainstream demographic who lapped up the bits like that in LOTR and as such you got the film to match.

I doubt the LOTR would be the same if made today unfortunately. We were probably really lucky that Jackson got it when he did.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

ah, that was a woke moment before woke was a thing. it was to show we are all 'brothers', all best buds (humans and elves) and we should hold hands and sing along together in the face of a ferocious, evil enemy.

In fact of course its worse since they didnt need teh eleven army for the surfing Legolas WAS at helms deep.

I just dont get at all why the elves needed to be there. It made no sense at all on any level to make that change.
I guess your right it was woke!!!11!

 

[Darujhistan]

Your of course welcome to your own opinion but you really need to add the word some into your post since you make out like it was black and white and that no one liked the Hobbit films

And FWIW I think the changes to the hobbit were more necessary than in LOTR. For example why did the elven army going to helms deep add anything apart from the comedy surfing elf moment.
Totally unnecessary change to the book plot on both counts.

You find me anyone that thinks The Hobbit films are better. Sure there are people who like The Hobbit films doesn't alter the facts about how the triliogoes are thought of. The changes don't matter if the films are good, that's the difference.

 

[C Kent]

Instead we got slapstick, a dwarf/elf love-story that made everyone vomit, some awful CGI, OTT action sequences and a slim tale scraped over way too much bread.

100% agree on this, my point is just that' there's moment that wouldn't look out of place in the og trilogy.

As to the changes PJ made? I'm glad they made them, the bloody thing would have been a musical otherwise

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

You find me anyone that thinks The Hobbit films are better. Sure there are people who like The Hobbit films doesn't alter the facts about how the triliogoes are thought of. The changes don't matter if the films are good, that's the difference.

Where did I say better?

Good is in the eye of the beholder.

Your creating all sorts of rules here on whats good or bad, allowed or not, and seemingly your the judge jury and executioner.
The elves at helms deep were not good, so no I disagree, the changes DO matter.

You seem to be happy to hand wave anything away if you like something but not if you don't.

Some people are irrational. Its just how it is.
Anyone who didn't like Hobbit 1 should have stopped and yet most seem to have watched all 3. Why?
What made them think, bah that film 1 was useless, totally not like the books, and yet they somehow went back for more.

 

[C Kent]

Where did I say better?

Good is in the eye of the beholder.

Your creating all sorts of rules here on whats good or bad, allowed or not, and seemingly your the judge jury and executioner.
The elves at helms deep were not good, so no I disagree, the changes DO matter.

You seem to be happy to hand wave anything away if you like something but not if you don't.

Some people are irrational. Its just how it is.
Anyone who didn't like Hobbit 1 should have stopped and yet most seem to have watched all 3. Why?
What made them think, bah that film 1 was useless, totally not like the books, and yet they somehow went back for more.

There's a difference between making changes to try to appeal to a broader audience and making changes to appeal to a tiny % of the population, the former will generally increase your audience/money gained, the latter will shrink it.

The hobbit trilogy wasn't a patch on the fellowship trilogy, my own personal scores would be 6/10 and 10/10 respectively, with the hobbit trilogy being on a par with your standard marvel product. I saw the original 3 in the cinema, and apart from the Hobbit the other 2 from were watched at home.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

There's a difference between making changes to try to appeal to a broader audience and making changes to appeal to a tiny % of the population, the former will generally increase your audience/money gained, the latter will shrink it.

The hobbit trilogy wasn't a patch on the fellowship trilogy, my own personal scores would be 6/10 and 10/10 respectively, with the hobbit trilogy being on a par with your standard marvel product. I saw the original's in the cinema, and apart from the Hobbit the others were watched at home.

Boom. Exactly my point all along

Changes nerds will accept will be different to general members of the public.
General public will judge a film by its entertainment factor only.

Do you think general members of public will know that X race should be fair skinned or always tall or ......

To further extend this out.
LOTR films box office revenue $M, in order 897.7, 945.7, 1146
Hobbit films same as above, 1017, 947.5, 962.2

So whilst I totally agree the LOTR trilogy was better, the hobbit was engaging enough for the general public to spend plenty on it.
So clearly the LOTR picked up, and converted some to go to the cinema, the hobbit did the opposite. But by no means did the paying public turn off heavily from the Hobbit second and third installment.

 

[Bigpig]

LOTR is the greatest trilogy ever.

Don't mind the Hobbit but that was more down to Freeman and McKellen.

It's has some fantastic moments.

 

[Darujhistan]

Where did I say better?

Good is in the eye of the beholder.

Your creating all sorts of rules here on whats good or bad, allowed or not, and seemingly your the judge jury and executioner.
The elves at helms deep were not good, so no I disagree, the changes DO matter.

You seem to be happy to hand wave anything away if you like something but not if you don't.

Some people are irrational. Its just how it is.
Anyone who didn't like Hobbit 1 should have stopped and yet most seem to have watched all 3. Why?
What made them think, bah that film 1 was useless, totally not like the books, and yet they somehow went back for more.

Good is in the eye of the beholder to a degree, some things are just objectively better than others, like The Beatles and Take That, now YOU may much prefer TT and you're not wrong for doing so, but The Beatles still made objevtively better music.

No, I don't think the changes do matter if the end product is amazing, and film is a different medium anyway. Very very few people who love the films care 1 iota that the Elves were at HD.

I agree you are irrational, you're trying make false equivalence with an absolute turkey of a trilogy, because you like them, with the greatest trilogy of all-time. And you're you'e doing this because you're in your feelings about people slamming The Hobbit films because they were ****.

Anyone who didn't like Hobbit 1 should have stopped and yet most seem to have watched all 3. Why?

Again with this garbage boring argument...people watch becuasde they're interested in the source material, people watch for all sorts of reasons, and who are you to decide who should watch what and who should'nt? Sounds a bit gate-keepy to me...

 

[C Kent]

Boom. Exactly my point all along

Changes nerds will accept will be different to general members of the public.
General public will judge a film by its entertainment factor only.

Do you think general members of public will know that X race should be fair skinned or always tall or ......

The nerds weren't welcoming of the changes made by Jackson though? Hell, these are the same people that would argue over the correct pronunciation of Balrog. Chris Tolkien often stated his dislike of the original trilogy before his death as in his words "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25", yet you can bet your bottom dollar that the Tolkien estate will be full of praise for the RoP show despite the fact they have gone in hard on the same action style sequences that were objected too originally. Same with large elements of the fandom, nothing will be said of the major changes to key elements of the lore.

I also know plenty of people that picked up the book afterwards, and agreed with a lot of the changes made, but also disagreed with some. The point is making changes for a better movie experience is generally a good thing, making changes to appease a bunch of weirdos that ultimately dont care about the franchise isn't a good thing. You only have to look at the American comic book market to see what happens.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Good is in the eye of the beholder to a degree, some things are just objectively better than others, like The Beatles and Take That, now YOU may much prefer TT and you're not wrong for doing so, but The Beatles still made objevtively better music.

No, I don't think the changes do matter if the end product is amazing, and film is a different medium anyway. Very very few people who love the films care 1 iota that the Elves were at HD.

I agree you are irrational, you're trying make false equivalence with an absolute turkey of a trilogy, because you like them, with the greatest trilogy of all-time. And you're you'e doing this because you're in your feelings about people slamming The Hobbit films because they were ****.

Anyone who didn't like Hobbit 1 should have stopped and yet most seem to have watched all 3. Why?

Again with this garbage boring argument...people watch becuasde they're interested in the source material, people watch for all sorts of reasons, and who are you to decide who should watch what and who should'nt? Sounds a bit gate-keepy to me...

Lol your so up your own views being right and no one else should have an opinion.
YOU think it was AMAZING, thats all that matters. Right? Wrong.

I get it you think your somehow superior.

Gate-keepy how utterly childishly pathetic, you certainly want to evidence that irrationality.
Literally saying that someone who hated the first film needed to watch the others to confirm they would hate them as well.
I wouldn't need to bet much that perfectly describes you.
OMFG this is awful, whens the next one out? I need to check thats awful as well.

Lack of coherent argument person says :
I love the film, doesn't matter if they changed anything.
I didn't like the film, whine like a baby about changes.

IMO both the beetles and Take that were pretty crap. I never liked the beetles and I never liked take that.
I can however understand why some people liked either or both. But yet again your applying your (false) superiority test, which sad to have to tell you, your failing at badly.
And what does it matter if the beetles made better music than take that, the fans of the time had a choice, listen or not.

Anyway I will let you get anti woke or whatever will come next and continue to rant about ROP, I am not going to waste any more time on closed minds.
I assume seeing as your going to hate it your not going to waste your time watching it.
Back to your safe space there is a black dwarf on the horizon!

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The nerds weren't welcoming of the changes made by Jackson though? Hell, these are the same people that would argue over the correct pronunciation of Balrog. Chris Tolkien often stated his dislike of the original trilogy before his death as in his words "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25", yet you can bet your bottom dollar that the Tolkien estate will be full of praise for the RoP show despite the fact they have gone in hard on the same action style sequences that were objected too originally. Same with large elements of the fandom, nothing will be said of the major changes to key elements of the lore.

I also know plenty of people that picked up the book afterwards, and agreed with a lot of the changes made, but also disagreed with some. The point is making changes for a better movie experience is generally a good thing, making changes to appease a bunch of weirdos that ultimately dont care about the franchise isn't a good thing. You only have to look at the American comic book market to see what happens.

Again I agree.
The definition of nerd I use loosely, but for clarification I mean in regards someone who doesn't accept deviation from the source material.
Outside that its all just simply personal taste.
LOTR was great, I loved it, I wouldn't remove the elves at helms deep, or insist on Tom B being added. I take them for what they were, and happy to accept that.
No books were harmed in the making and nothing stops another later update being better again.

I mean hell one of my favourite films is The Girl next door, its by all sensible judgements trash. But I like it, I am sure against the majority view.

I actually liked WOT as well, I just divorced the books (which I am listening to again now) from the TV series in my mind.
I would rather have the option of watching someones interpretation of WOT on TV than not.
At least I can choose to or not to.

Which is where the Hobbit is to me, not really "mentally" linked to the childrens book, but a Middle earth movie.

 

[Darujhistan]

Lol your so up your own views being right and no one else should have an opinion.
YOU think it was AMAZING, thats all that matters. Right? Wrong.

I get it you think your somehow superior.

Gate-keepy how utterly childishly pathetic, you certainly want to evidence that irrationality.
Literally saying that someone who hated the first film needed to watch the others to confirm they would hate them as well.
I wouldn't need to bet much that perfectly describes you.
OMFG this is awful, whens the next one out? I need to check thats awful as well.

Lack of coherent argument person says :
I love the film, doesn't matter if they changed anything.
I didn't like the film, whine like a baby about changes.

IMO both the beetles and Take that were pretty crap. I never liked the beetles and I never liked take that.
I can however understand why some people liked either or both. But yet again your applying your (false) superiority test, which sad to have to tell you, your failing at badly.
And what does it matter if the beetles made better music than take that, the fans of the time had a choice, listen or not.

Anyway I will let you get anti woke or whatever will come next and continue to rant about ROP, I am not going to waste any more time on closed minds.
I assume seeing as your going to hate it your not going to waste your time watching it.
Back to your safe space there is a black dwarf on the horizon!

You're losing the plot now. Where did I ever say no-one else should have an opinion?

LOTR is superior to The Hobbit which was an absolute disaster.

Yeah I think gate-keeping is pathetic, it is not up to you to decide who can and can't watch a movie and then when they should STOP watching a trilogy, but we know why you did this, to try and invlidate criticism, the well-worn "If you don't like don't watch". Look just accept that people thought The Hobbit trilogy was crap and move on.

LOL! You even take the Beatles/TT example personally, wasn't it obvious to you I was making the point that some "creative works" are subjectively better than others?

You're completely out of your depth here, you cannot follow the debate and are just throwing random nonsense in there as you've nothing substantive to say.

Oh thank god, you're going to stop replying to me, and I don't have to waste any more time on you. Go and enjoy your woke crap, there's literally mountains of it out there - maybe go and be She-Hulk enjoyer?

Bye now!