These movies aren't very good and you know it

These movies aren't very good and you know it.

That the story is such a blatant and shallow Good vs Evil where the bad guys where black and the good guys where white is just insulting for any adult who isn't mentally deficient.
Conan the Barbarian for example is far better, more introspective, more morally ambiguous and made with more effort.
>But muh effects!

Aged poorly I'm afraid, when was the last time any of you actually watched these?

Does this board suck the cock of these movies out of nostalgia or what?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hhHvj3_si_o
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

SHARE THE LOAD

It was Jackson's prime. They're good movies. Honestly I think the quality drops at the end, though.

They aren't good though. They're mediocre at best and should've been relegated to bargain bin B-movie status if the equally mediocre source material wasn't treated as so sacrosanct by millennials and boomers alike.

>muh morality
Not an argument, faggot

The 3rd movie sucks and I think everyone knows it, but the other 2 were great so it's ok.

It most certainly is when discussing the merits of a work of fiction.
Do you think capeshit is good too? The morality of both movies is the same.

>where the bad guys where black and the good guys where white
so you mean like real life?

youre right not only is the direction absolutely stale as fuck as is the camera work editing etc etc

frodo is shit and this aged badly....eight years ago.

>Not liking LOTR
Wow dude, you must be fun at parties.

Has the stench of studio involvement. Shades of the Hobbit creeping in.

Yes, they're fantasy movies. But LotR has infinitely more love put into it.

It was a shit book that became a shit mega blockbuster for plebs. There's tons of better fantasy writers and books out there than a whiny luddite Christcuck like Tolkien. Fuckin A on the Black Company. That's some solid fantasy right there. Super inviting, too.

For something a little harder and deeper (see what I did there?) Steven Erikson's Malazan series is amazing. As is George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire.

LOTR is literally moralfag fantasy for Christians.

Wasted effort on shit material more like.

>this argument
>only for lotr and nothing else
Kys

Well done OP, well done

HOWEVER

Like...wow.....you must be real fun at parties.

40 minutes of TTT is worthless
only fellowship was good

>It was Jackson's prime.
shit bait. Everything he did after braindead was garbage for 12yos

ITT devastated lotrfags

Could you BE..any more fun at parties?

>the bad gys where black
>where

You aren't allowed to talk of people's mental deficiencies.

But you're right about Conan.

But blacks usually are bad.

master lorefag ask me anything

>Reading comp

buzzwords the post

Name some good direction that doesnt have to do with the script or plot

nah

No it's not
You're a faggot

>all these children who were blatantly too young to see LOTR as kids

>assuming
I saw them in theaters and loved them was a was a preteen and highschooler too. They suck

false, you just turned into a pretentious edgelord

Nope. See hoe your post says more about you than me? You cant deal with people thinking they arent good so you will make up excuses to prevent your brain from crying

Lord of the Rings his a story about action, adventure, chivalry, brotherhood, friendship and courage. And it has one of the best productions in cinema history. Also it invented all these fantasy tropes before everyone else and still did it better than everyone else.

Lord of the Rings his a story about cliche, fighting, m'lady, m'brother, friendship and courage. And it has one of the most overrated productions in cinema history. Also it harnessed all these fantasy cliches after everyone else and still did it better worse than everyone else.

Sorry but all of those themes are shallow children's trash you can find on kids shows. The inclusion of them does not make LOTR a good work. And I'm pretty sure the Arthurian garbage, equally vapid and shallow and moralistic, came centuries before and utilized the same infantile themes.

>Fairy elven capeshit trash
Not even once. Only neckbeard faggots and beta's who wanna roleplay as viggo give a fuck about it.

What would be an example of a good movie then.

No Country for Old Men

I don't think you're being fair to the movies. They're not as good as everybody says? Maybe, but that doesn't make them bad movies.
Also, they are a not-that-bad adaptation from the book.

>Look guys, I don't like something people like, I'm special, please pay attention!

Not an argument.

>look guys, I'm being a contrarian on the internet! Am I cool yet?

the books are shit too

>there are people that unironically think lotr was bad

Reminder the only time you hear whining like this is in lotr threads and not everything else when lotrfags are being contrarian faglords

Malazan is amazing, but soiaf is pleb tier sword of truth level. it is no where close to lotr

ASoIaF is far better than LOTR and actually presents a realistic depiction of a medieval world without forced shallow moralfaggotry and gay elves. Malazan also does this. Both of the authors wrote to spite Tolkien and I think they deserve equal credit.

I know. I'm not defending Tolkien, I'm saying you're a bitch

>not a single serious replay

eh, you tried.

After half a century of Tolkien fantasy being ripped off endlessly, I couldn't stand to see another pair of pointy elf ears or a wizard casting a spell.

It really is just fucking baffling how one source created so many copy cats. A pale elf with pointy ears and a bow is as iconic as the Easter bunny now because of Tolkien.

>le contrarian to be cool

epic simply epic

>actually presents a realistic depiction of a medieval world
>dragons and magic
nope. grrm is a trash writer, while tolkiens writing is god-tier. the story is good in that it's unique and interesting with unexecpted twists and a breath of fresh air to the genre, but still not better than lotr. Malazan is 100X better than soiaf, and comparable to lotr.

how am i being contrarian? the fact that asoif is pleb-tier is not contrarian at all.

malazan came about from a d&d game. It's trash compared to soiaf

Malazan is a million times better than LOTR. It's written by somebody with an actual real career (anthropologist), has realistic morals and circumstances (only grey and evil characters and most times evil wins), world is extremely realistic and detailed and not some Christfag exercise to dump a shitty made up language.

I think I understand your problem now.
You're a woman.

Man alive. I've never read Malazan, but you are misrepresenting Tolkien a little bit. He volunteered immediately for World War I and fought in the Battle of the Somme and was a codebreaker in World War II. Academically he was also a very solid Old English linguistic scholar. I think that all should qualify as 'an actual real career.'

>malazan came about from a d&d game
so?

it has everything good about asoiaf but also so much more. you're a dumbass that couldn't finish the series, im willing to bet on it.

the writing is far below that of tolkien, and realism is not something i look for in fantasy. And tolkien technically had more of a career than erikson (english prof at oxford), but I also don't judge a fantasy book on something as silly as that. I think it is around the same level as lotr.

yeah man, it's the best trilogy ever made and there's not a single thing you can do about it.

>muh star wars

fuck off, star wars faded out with the losers that worshipped it.

Best trilogy ever made is Henry IV part 1 and 2 and Henry V

>tfw getting comfy in bed on a Saturday afternoon and you see lotr is on some shitty channel like tbs

Anthropologist is a far more respectable career than some Christcuck who spent his whole life mulling over books and had a very childish world view that translated into his incoherent and simplistic storytelling trying to ape the shitty legends he had a boner for.
It's worth noting the dude who wrote Malazan despised Tolkien so much he outright refused to acknowledge his existence and didn't write to spite him but pretended he never existed. And Malazan speaks for itself in that regard.

you probably think drangon lance is top tier fantasy. Do you shit in a bowl so you can immediately turn around and enjoy the taste of it?

>the bad guys where black and the good guys where white

But that's realistic, user.

>Malazan despised Tolkien so much he outright refused to acknowledge his existence and didn't write to spite him but pretended he never existed.
What does this sentence mean?

And you can't deal with the fact that people do like them. And you're blatantly pretentious

You were born after 1997

Philology is a worthwile academic pursuit you goddamn philistine.

Not everything is morally grey and that's just fine.

You know how authors who hate Tolkien like Moorcock like to take Tolkien's work and try to write the exact opposite out of spite?
Erickson hated Tolkien so much he didn't even do that much, he wrote entirely in a vacuum where nothing Tolkien did mattered to him.
You know that part from Mad Men with 'I don't think about you at all?' It's basically that.

Not after you reach age 7 it isn't.

>drangon lance
nope. start arguing any time.

He never actually worked as an anthropologist. Also an english prof at oxford in the 20th century is pretty fucking respectable....

I also met Erikson on a ferry a few months ago, he was cool.

>Erickson hated Tolkien so much he didn't
Erikson doesn't hate Tolkien, he just never read him and doesn't like that kind of fantasy.

Excellent series, FotR is my favorite film. You just have terrible tastes.

This reminds me of that one guy from Sup Forums that would always make threads insulting Fist of the North Star and shill Akagi

>Arthurian garbage

Tread lightly faggot. Those are very influential stories. Who are you coming for next edgelord? Chaucer?

While it is encouraging that he avoided the Tolkien trap that almost all fantasy falls into, by either imitation or opposition, I'm looking at the fact that he wrote 10 novels in his main series and that worries me.

>le not an argument

Don't need to argue to point out you have shit taste

Here's your (You) OP. Enjoy your hour of attention.

You know, I think the case can be made that the Arthurian renaissance under Edward III created the circumstances for Chaucer to forge out a career as a poet.

>ASoIaF is far better than LOTR and actually presents a realistic depiction of a medieval world without forced shallow moralfaggotry and gay elves. Malazan also does this. Both of the authors wrote to spite Tolkien and I think they deserve equal credit.

I think i can see your problem. You're 12. Realism doesn't make a story better especially when it's an inherently unrealistic genre like fantasy.

Akagi literally did nothing wrong though and Sup Forums agrees.

That mad men analogy actually means the opposite of what you think it means pal.

Tolkien would be the Draper, while all those hating him (and building entire universes around repudiating Tolkien) would be Ginsberg.

well there is a lot of cuckolding in those stories.

After rewatching the films, there is a definite drop in quality between the first films and the next two. I think it partly has to do with the absence of Sean Bean. Jackson still does a good job at capturing the emotional scenes between Frodo and Sam, but Sean Bean dominated the first film.
youtube.com/watch?v=hhHvj3_si_o
The fucking complexity of Bean's reaction to learning that his king is right there is incredible.

I think it has more to do with the first film being able to follow Frodo and then the entire fellowship for the majority of the film. Where the later movies broke up the narrative by jumping from Frodo's to Aragorn's story every now and then.

This is rich. Again hypocritical coming from this board that thinks they can hate any everything except lord of the rings. Fucking perfect.

Sup Forums hates on everything that people like and are blatantly pretentious with zero problem unless its directed at lotr. making me think

Tolkien is dead and there wasn't a mainstream fantasy genre full of authors like there is today. You are wrong.

And the reason there even is a mainstream fantasy is because of Tolkien. All these people can come out of the wood work and write as many stories as they want but in the end they will be forgotten long before Tolkien is because they are nowhere near as influential.

One of the bad guys is literally called Saruman the White.

What do you think about CS Lewis?

Epitome of a manchild Christfag who was terrified of sex and liberated women.

>terrified of liberated women

Considering how destructive liberated women are to society, I'm not really surprised.

The first movie had the advantage of almost exclusively following Frodo on his first trip out of the Shire and into a bigger, more dangerous world. It was more of an adventure movie that gave a sense of awe and wonder as we followed him from the Shire, to Rivendell, to Moria, to Lothlorien and other places in between. TTT and RotK were mostly about war Frodo's journey transformed into a slow trudge through a wasteland with Gollum in tow. They were still good, they just felt very different.

So fantasy shouldn't have any kind of grounding and it should all be sheer unrestrained autism?
Let me summarize why Martin's worldbuilding is superior and why it's resonated with so many modern readers while Tolkien fades to obscurity:

>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

I sort of agree OP. I hadn't seen them since they first came out when I was a kid until I watched the extended cuts a few months ago. The practical effects hold up well and some of the battle scenes are great. All of the CGI aged poorly though. I will say I think Fellowship is the best because it does great comfy adventure stuff, but after that when everything goes up in scale the films become a lot worse. Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are invincible gods of death that never make mistakes in battle so there are virtually no stakes most of the time. Gollum is an interesting character but Frodo and Sam are really shitty after the first movie. They get very stale and boring with nothing of real interest happening to them (or in them as characters) plus they're just gay and annoying. Return is the worst one, that fucking ending is so stupid my mouth was literally agape. I tried reading the books but I gave up at the beginning of Return because I just really don't care for Tolkien's writing style. The movies just don't do much for me, even as a lover of adventure, fantasy battles, and practical effects schlock.

Jackson had a great run up through Heavenly Creatures, then The Frighteners was absolutely terrible. After LOTR, King Kong was his last great film (and leagues above the trilogy btw). Since then it has all been downhill.

>if fantasy doesn't conform to my preference for "gritty", "grounded" realism, then it's bad

GRRM is actually a very good world builder but he isn't on Tolkien's level, and neither is his writing.

fellowship is the only good one and gollum is great and serkis is based but he cant save the others. theye aged badly as well

>where the bad guys where black and the good guys where whtie
>where
I guess despite this post you don't find it 'insulting' because you're clearly mentally deficient

>Let me summarize why Martin's worldbuilding is superior and why it's resonated with so many modern readers while Tolkien fades to obscurity:

First off all, as soon as Game of Thrones ends it will be Martin's books that will fade to obscurity because his books won't be finished. It's a flavor of the month type thing right now, while Lord of the Rings has stood the test of time and defined a genre.

What does knowing about Aragorn's tax policy actually add to the story? Does it make it better? Would adding fuck through the story make it appeal more to you? It seems to me you're more looking for something to make you feel more mature than you actually are.