LOTR is better than this - The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Discussion

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Lord of the rings though isn’t a set of three related things, it’s just one thing, it’s one story chopped into pieces, I could get out my movie editor and do the same thing to any film and by your logic that would make it a trilogy.

reply

[–] LiquidOcelot (2313) 3 years ago

I don't even like LOTR but it's better than this shit for sure. TDKR is possibly the worst ending to any trilogy I can think of.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 3 years ago

Well, there's been heated argument over the past howeverlong on these boards about the definition of trilogy, but I'll say this: if Lord of the Rings is trilogy, it's one of the best of all time. If it's not, then Lord of the Rings is one of the best standalone films of all-time. It's a superlative work of art.

Either way, it's vastly superior to TDKR, a rather disappointing finale to its predecessors.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Lord of the rings is a complete insult to the source material and it’s nowhere near the level of any of the Nolan Batman films

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 3 years ago

While I do vastly prefer the books to the films, I'll take either over Nolan's Batman films (not that I dislike BB or TDK, either).

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

The LOtR movie was so stupid, childish and cliched, the dark Knight trilogy was epic and mature from beginning to end. My favorite part is the very end of TDKR , that was the most perfect, satisfying conclusion I have ever seen

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 3 years ago

I disagree on basically every point.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Honestly the Bakshi version in 1978 captured the spirit of the novel better than the Jackson version did

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 3 years ago

I enjoy a lot of the Bakshi stuff. The weird, bent, hobbling Ringwraiths are unsettling, uncanny, and disturbing; John Hurt did a fantastic vocalization of Aragorn, and the art style is incredible. It does feel rushed, though, although that's not really Bakshi's fault.

McKellen crushed it as Gandalf, though. In fact, all the performers in Jackson's version are great and really look the parts. They benefit from being a triptych so they can take their time and pace things out better. Shore's score is...astounding. I can't imagine a better soundscape for them. Their effects were great. I will say this: they made some foolish digressions (Faramir was mangled in translation, for instance) and, of course, some stuff gets dummed down for streamlining (even the massive director's cuts don't have enough room for *everything*), but overall they get most of it right and Tolkien's majesty shines through, mostly because of, and sometimes in spite of, the filmmakers.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

>>> MovieChatUser497 (11712) a year ago

The LOtR movie was so stupid, childish and cliched<<<

Well, I disagree completely on the first two. If it was cliched that was because Tolkien created the cliches. Not that most tropes in LOTR hadn't appeared before. But their continual and ubiquitous presence in fantasy literature since is due entirely to Tolkien's use of them.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Not really, the movie was almost nothing like the book.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

Your bizarre interpretations of the film vs movie are well known and completely unfounded. I see no need to debate you on that.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

I accept your concession.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

No concession. I accept that you are an ill-informed, pretentious person.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

You refuse to contribute to anything resembling an intelligent discussion so therefore you are conceding that I am right and you are wrong.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

Since you have not made any intelligent comments supporting your opinion, I see no reason to do so.

However, to forestall the inevitable gloating trolls use when someone refuses to acknowledge their foolishness, LOTR was the most accurate adaptation of Tolkien's work to date. Most of the story is presented as written.

Yes, some items were condensed or omitted for a variety of reasons; including brevity and ease of story telling. Items excluded, of course include Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. The former since it is vastly different in tone and likely confusing to the audience since it comes out of nowhere and doesn't seem to lead anywhere in the narrative. The Scouring was omitted as the film already seems to have multiple endings; one of the common critiques of the films.

The Army of the Dead's role was expanded to include the army of Orcs besieging Gondor. I wasn't overly happy about that, but I can see the issue as the battle had already taken a long time and the ghosts allowed a quick end.

I'm sure you can find other items. This is quite normal for any film adaptation. Books can afford to take time to explore large intricacies of plot and world building that a film must gloss over.

Your contention is that the film has almost nothing to do with the book. I say it is largely faithful to the narrative and the vast majority of the details.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

If that is your premise then why did you even bother responding you idiot?

- Whether it's the "most accurate adaptation to date" or not is irrelevant, that doesn't make it an accurate adaptation. And its only competition are a couple of 1.5 hour long cartoons so the competition isn't exactly stiff.

- The Scouring of the Shire was the greatest chapter in the entire novel and they took it out, the entire ending was beyond anti-climatic because it was left out not to mention Saruman never got a proper sendoff. And the movie already did have multiple endings, if it was a time issue they should have edited out one of the endings which is where people started to bitch and moan.

- The Army of the Dead aka Pirate Ghosts was the stupidest change in the entire movie. It was such a cop out seeing how once you control the Pirate Ghosts you basically win the war. They pretty much did the entire job for our heroes although it does show Aragorn's idiocy, he should have said "win the battle of Minas Tirith, then kill all the orcs in Mordor (it's right next door), then kill that pesky spider running around, kill all of the ring wraiths, then clear a path so a Hobbit can drop a ring in a volcano and if he decides not to do it, make him, then I will hold your oaths fulfilled"

The movie is also riddled with plot holes because it starts multiple subplots from the novel (such as Faramir and Eowyn's romance) but it never follows through on them so it doesn't make any sense. Not to mention the movie turns many of these characters into complete idiots! Boromir, Merry, Pippin, Theoden, Denethor, Faramir (ESPECIALLY) are virtually nothing like they are in the novel. The only 3 characters who I thought were even remotely faithfully adapted were Sam, Gollum and Saurman.

The movie is not faithful to the novel whatsoever.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

You know all movies have to, by necessity, make changes and remove things. NO, absolutely no adaptation is completely accurate to the source. (that goes both ways. Novelizations aren't accurate to the films they are adapted from.)

Overall, LOTR is a very accurate adaptation. It hits all the main notes of the story. It adds in a few things, deletes a few things, and adjusts some things to make the story work in a film environment.

This is obviously going to be one of those circular arguments and I have reached the end of my tolerance for it. That is not a concession. You can claim anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Claim you are the King of the World and I won't be bending any knees to you.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

That’s fine but the changes should make sense, in the case of LOTR it didn’t. Hell one of the greatest films ever Silence of the Lambs is very close to the novel and it worked perfectly.

LOTR is not an accurate adaptation and I have proven that it isn’t. It’s a complete insult to a really great novel.

It is a concession and I accept it.

reply

[–] Costumer (1803) 2 years ago

Don't. I don't give it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Appears you lost again! Maybe don't fight universally acclaimed films?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Appealing to popularity is a logical fallacy

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

So you're against democracy now? Figures..

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

The Democracy doesn't decide what is true or not. If every single person on Earth agreed that the Earth was flat that wouldn't make it true.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Thx

reply

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

Hahaha and there it is again.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 2 years ago

None of the 3 volumes of The Lord of the Rings can be “seen as a single work.” It was written as a single work, a very long work. The publisher, cheap and cowardly as they all are, took a meat ax and chopped it into 3 segments. He published the first 1 as a trial run,?to see if it would sell. None of the 3 volumes has a proper beginning AND conclusion. For an example of a genuine trilogy, read Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy.

You quote the Oxford dictionary, but you don’t know how to read it. Curious.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

I never understand why anyone cares. Trilogy, not a trilogy. What is the issue?

Both LotR and Bat-Nolan have high production value. LotR is a decent group of movies that are less and less interesting as they go but still good. The Bat-Nolan group of movies are pretty good if flawed and then drop off a cliff with the third one. So on the whole, LotR is better. Trilogy status is important exactly how in this comparison?

reply

[–] Druff (1527) 2 years ago

Perhaps because one likely reason LotR is considered by so many to be such a great trilogy is that it wasn't a trilogy. It was one singular story that got chopped up after it was finished. It seems a lot more consistent than many other "real" trilogies where the three parts were created as separate units and the connections between them can be off, poorly conceived after thoughts, etc.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

I'd ask again but ...

reply

[–] Druff (1527) 2 years ago

...but the question's been answered.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 2 years ago

I think it's somewhat of a semantic argument which some people try and use as a technicality to cleansweep competition. As a parallel: if one wants to assert that 2001 is the greatest sci-fi movie of all time, one might claim that Star Wars is a fantasy movie and Blade Runner is technically a film noir so as to discount certain high-grade competitors.

In this case, I think people want to qualify Lord of the Rings because they love it and want it to be the (return of the) king of trilogies, whereas if somebody loved The Dark Knight Trilogy and didn't want LOTR fans to have a leg to stand on, just claim it's disqualified.

Ultimately, I'm with you: it doesn't really matter. It's semantics. And if we're talking about "three films, linked together," it doesn't matter if they technically qualify as "trilogies", it's just about talking about our favourite film series. Or, at least, that's what it should be.

For what it's worth, I prefer LOTR to TDK, partly because I didn't care for TDKR and found it brought the saga down.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

Perspicacious and a pleasure to read. Thank you, Ace. That fits.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 2 years ago

My pleasure.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I don't see them as comparable. One is three movies about one character and the other is one story about multiple characters broken into three movies.

Personally, I dont rewatch either because Batman movies come out almost every three years and LOTR is TDLTW. In theaters LOTD was great. At home I usually stop watching an hour into the first movie.

reply

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

This thread should have been ignored.

reply

[–] SandyR (7732) 2 years ago

None of the Dark Knight movies ever put me to sleep the way the LOTR movies did.

reply

[–] mikethemartian (6285) 2 years ago

I’m not a huge Lord of the Rings fan but I thought the books were much better than the films.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9458) 2 years ago

I think the books are much better than the films, but I still think the films are an astounding achievement and very fine works of art in their own right.

reply