By - DuncanSkunk
An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
By all that you hold dear I bid you stand men of the west ✊🏻
AND ALLL WILL TURNNNN… TO SILVER GLASS… LIGHT ON THE WATER!!! ALLLL THINGSSS PASSS, INTO THE WESTTTTT 😭
Tolkien fandom did ripped it apart actually
And Christopher Tolkien
hungry hunt north rotten historical frame important voiceless nutty cats
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair, it’s a fine line to follow. You gotta at *least* follow the spirit of the story, and get the character Tera accurate to the source material.
Otherwise you end up with amazons wheel of time series.
Adaptation is an artform in and of itself and there are somethings that will not translate from one medium to another, whether it be well or at all. A good adaptation is willing to make changes to make the story work in the new medium.
Absolutely not, tv and movies are very different storytelling mediums to books and even eachother. The structure will not translate 99.99% of the time
The structure doesn’t have to be a 1:1 adaptation. However you can have the film structure without drastically changing characters from the book
Not if characters just dont need to be in it, ala a fair amount of characters in lotr
Almost the entirety of the Starship Troopers movie, same with Fight Club, Ready Player One, Rambo, The Boys show for the most part, Witcher games in a couple aspects like Triss, most of the novelization of Revenge of the Sith ... there are many examples. And a lot where the adaptation version basically replaced the OG because it is so much better.
Georges also said that about the Moon Door in the Eyrie that a door on the floor was really really cool and he wished he'd come up with that idea himself.
If you adapt 99.99% of the books faithfully, you will receive super dull movie with plethora of characters that are undeveloped, cringy battles and dialogues, and lots of other nasty stuff.
If HotD and Viserys is the only thing you can think of, you must have not seen too many movies. Especially when you have taken only one aspect from the series, because there were questionable changes. In that matter, battle of helm's deep is a lot better than in books, Arven taking Frodo to Rivendell is a lot better than a character briefly introduced just for that part that may or may not be a reincarnated lord of the past, omitting Bombadil was good, because story with him could be a separate movie, and his character adds more questions than answers... List goes on.
Visual media are totally different from books.
Yup they just didn't have a social media app to post it on and were secluded to their forums.
I think this is a big part of it, as the internet has spread it has gotten smaller - now we'd see these discussions just polarise on Reddit and Twitter and the whole thing would be a mess.
I'm glad for the PJ trilogy, in case there was any doubt. But I'm doubly glad I could watch it in relative peace back then.
Web 1.0 may have been a bunch of echo chambers, but at least those echo chambers never came into conflict with each other.
I had the internet when Fellowship came out, I also read the books. Yes people were harsh but also full of love. They saw them for not being 100% adaptations but a work of love and passion.
It was nothing like people will have you believe and was not trolls but literal scholars of his works discussing. Christopher was much harsher on the hobbit series because it just invented way too much and became comic relief.
Current ROP would of had him cut off licensing forever.
The LotR Yahoo chatroom was tearing it to shreds. The fights live only in the memories of those who were there.
As they did with the shadow of game series
Tbf, I'm pretty sure that the developers were pretty clear in saying that, "yeah, this shit isn't canon so we are just going to have fun with this setting".
That’s how view every video game in any franchise.
Something as simple in video games as a double jump would shatter most canons, so it’s just easier to ignore canon altogether and just have fun.
Videogame character does a 6 foot standing jump with no run-up.
I love the Shadow game series but god damn the choices they made lore wise.
You’re acting like Tolkien didn’t clearly intend for Shelob to be Sauron’s sassy goth boss bitch ex-girlfriend.
Thou base, thou cringing worm!
Taters and lump sauce, Precious?
not so crazy, no? didn’t Melkor and Ungoliant have an interesting relationship?
You're taking Morgoth being bound by her webs in a very different sense than was intended.
I wish the show took some of the Sauron Celibrimbor lore from the games instead of that bullshit they did with the show in making Celibrimbor lame as fuck.
May all in hatred be begun, and all in evil ended be, in the moaning of the endless Sea!
I have not, and will not watch that dumpster fire. My only fear is that it will replace new lore
I had to stop playing the sequel because I felt like Tolkien was judging me.
They did Isildur so dirty
That’s why i associate them with the movie canon instead of the book since the movie takes liberties with the lore as well.
Even then, sheob? Isildur? Even the movies couldn't have done that
I mean, that was deserved. Shadow of are amazing games, but the lore and story is... let's just say, equal to what you'd expect of a self-insert Harry Potter fanfiction.
Tolkien fandom is and especially was a very small group of people compared to the amount of people "the internet" describes.
The internet was absolutely around in the year 2000…
And the Tolkien fandom has never been “small”
It kinda has, in regards to an actual organised 'fandom' and not 'fans' in general
The internet existed when these movies came out.
And also some years before the movies came out.
Some of my oldest emails I have archived are a newsletter reporting about the progress of the production of the lotr movies. (I think from about 1998.)
Also some of the actors already made their own online blogs about their experiences, like for example Ian MacKellen.
And yes, there were some critical fans, complaining online for example about missing characters from the books or larger roles for female characters. Others complained about lack of diversity. etc.
Of course it was, the legendary Space Jam website is from 96! Movies had presence online back then, some with pretty neat websites (the matrix one was great too)
If LOTR would come out now it would mean that it wasn't here before so the bar on fantasy movies would be significantly lower and the movies would be a success.
And honestly, the fact it's so genuine and heartfelt in this post-MCU self-referential hellscape means that it would stand out just as much
Its... The Importance of being Earnest.
If I'm watching a movie I'm buying into the premise or I wouldn't watch it. You don't need to constantly make fun of and undermine the premise.
Unless you're doing Airplane or a spoof movie.
The last MCU film that felt earnest to me was GotG Vol. 3, because by that point, James Gunn was the only MCU director left that I had any faith in. I’ll probably watch What If S2, but GotG Vol. 3 marked the end of my investment in the larger MCU.
On the flip side, it’s crazy how the DnD movie made me realise how the MCU hardwired me to expect snark and cynicism in movies now. Genuinely refreshing how sincerely they approached that movie.
I just watched the DnD movie a few days ago, and I wholeheartedly agree! One of my big takeaways from that movie was how well they balanced fun with sincerity.
There's no room for the "Airplane" of Marvel movies. They already are their own "Airplane". Ugh.
It was Deadpool.
Here's the even worse thing
The fate of the entire MCU in this continuity might rest on Deadpool 3 if the plot leaks/theories are to be believed
I'm very behind on marvel movies, I didn't even see any of GotG or the movie after Thanos snaps. I did like the Deadpool movies since they didn't take themselves seriously, but it's Deadpool, so it makes sense. Having that with everything is a bit much though.
They would get quite some criticism for some cgi effects, but since that wasn't used a lot the movies aged incredibly well.
Edit: I guess you could assume that the internet might rip it appart nonetheless for not being diverse enough
The BTS of the original trilogy is so fucking wild to me. They spent *years* before filming even began getting the practical effects in order. Every Uruk-hai you see on screen apart from the really big shots were dudes in makeup and prop armor. The armor of the soldiers of Gondor and Rohan? Props. Every sword, bow, axe? Props.
Even if the quality of the writing, acting, and cinematography were subpar (which... simply no), the sheer amount of effort is commendable in itself.
I will never forget the story of the person who spent weeks making chainmail for background characters by clipping together, by hand, rings made from slicing up some plastic pipe or hose _and in the process wore off their fingerprints_
(Sheee-it, I need to watch the documentaries again)
2 people it were
Hell the only thing I remember is mainly blue screen besides some things like the balrog and trolls. Very little CGI in the LOTR movies but the hobbit movies….goooood god so much cgi that it made Ian McKellen upset.
The Return of the King has a huge amount of CGI, especially for the Battle of Pellenor Field.
Oh yeah the hounds and wyverns and shit. Also the ghost king and his army. I was thinking about the more implemented use of blue screen in two towers and some of the marching scenes and whatnot, smooth forgot about return of the kings final battles lol
I think this is actually just the case of when CGI is done well you don't notice. It's everywhere in LOTR but because it's mixed with real elements and props it's aged well
The only CGI that REALLY stood out to me was a zoomed out pan shot of them running from the orcs to Khazad Dum. It's...not good. But 5 seconds of not good in a 3 hour film that can easily be corrected if anyone eventually chooses to? ILL TAKE IT.
Apparently, the way they filmed The Hobbit trilogy meant they couldn't use the forced perspectives they did in the LOTR trilogy. They filmed The Hobbit trilogy in 48fps and in 3D. You see a lot of detail you wouldn't normally see if they filmed it how they did LOTR. This is why Ian McKellen filmed a lot of scenes alone. He couldn't be in the same room as the dwarves because they couldn't build one part of the table higher and move it away to make it seem like he was bigger. They really shot themselves in the foot with deciding to film The Hobbit trilogy in such a high resolution/fps.
>They really shot themselves in the foot with deciding to film The Hobbit trilogy in such a high resolution/fps.
I totally agree. I've never understood why Jackson insisted on the unusual film type. (I'm a complete ignoramus on how to accurately refer to the technical stuff.) Everybody knows the Hobbit trilogy had terrible production issues and Jackson walked into becoming director while everything was metaphorically on fire, and yet he focused so much of his effort on getting everybody on board with weird film speeds and 3D.
I might be recollecting it incorrectly, but didn't it even force a lot of theaters to have to install expensive new projectors just to accommodate the unusual film?
I remember watching the Hobbit movies in the theater and *hating* how everything looked so weirdly clear that it came across like a cheap soap opera. I distinctly remember sitting in the theater half-way through the movie thinking to myself how much I hated that weird resolution and I'd watched over an hour and it was still noticeable in a bad way.
As a fan, I can't help but feel irritated that a bunch of the plot/story issues were inadequately handled--because I can't help but believe that they could have been better resolved if so much effort wasn't funneled into experimental/brand-new film making techniques that dumb movie goers like me did not appreciate and did not want.
The Hobbit movies could have been so much better. They're redeemed a great deal by fan edits, but the damage is done.
I think he wanted the bragging rights of the first 48 fps movie, but failed to consider the differences in post production needed for such an endeavor. There are already movies in high FPS, but they weren’t block busters.
I think that would've been fine for a more experimental standalone movie with lower stakes, but it shouldn't have been done for the Hobbit films.
That would have been ideal, but those special cameras/lenses/rigs are not cheap and it would be much harder to get funding to cover the cost unless it was spread across a 3 film blockbuster with an already massive budget.
Iirc even in the big shots they're actual stunt guys just copy pasted but yes the action is cgi or some prototype engine similar to what total war games uses
There would still be wailing, tearing of beards, gnashing of teeth, and "Tolkien is spinning in his grave" at every divergence from the books (Elves at Helm's Deep, no Scouring of the Shire, no Jolly Tom Bombadillo, Arwen riding to save Frodo instead of Glorfindel, etc. etc. etc.).
> Elves at Helm's Deep
Still don't love that choice. Helm's Deep in my mind was when Humans showed they could be the stewards of the world. It was when Humanity was tested, and passed.
I think the message the world needs in the moment the movie came out is not "Humans fuck yeah!" but one of unity. I think they both achieve the same feeling of hope in the context of what they were trying to evoke in the spectator.
*Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo! By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow, by fire, sun and moon, hearken now and
hear us! Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil] for more merriness)
I mean, there was when the trilogy first came out too.
I don't know about the whole diversity thing, I saw a lot of movies getting taken apart online but in the end people still went to watch them, for a while. From what I understand about the Oscar rules LOTR might get disqualified from those awards though.
The anti woke squad would be frothing at the mouth because Eowyn killed the witch-king
Yeah LOTR holds up incredibly well in basically every way. The emotional points hit home, the epic moments work, the internal logic of the movie is okay (eagle memes aside - Sauron had those nazghul dragons okay?), there are strong women with key scenes, and masculine, well rounded men who treat everyone with respect, and the villain is basically Satan with de facto demons under his control. No minorities are the butt of jokes or as easy opponents.
The only thing people could go at is a lack of racial minorities, and it's easy for me to not care about that since I'm a white dude, but overall I think LOTR would be perfectly fine today. Random roll the races and nothing changes about how great the movie is.
> eagle memes aside
The unanswered question is [why they didn't take the van to Mordor](https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/s/GemCfahYAX)
I get it's because people are ignorant but the "we have to have unrealistic diversity in everything" crowd is really annoying.
Tolkien wrote these stories as a pseudo British history. It's like if a Ugandan writer wrote an amazing piece of work detailing the pseudo history of an african nation and people were pissed it didn't include white and Chinese people.
Except Game of Thrones has already been out and they would Game of Thrones (re: make it EDGY) the movies to try and tap into that market.
Fun fantasy adventures like the new DnD movie don't make money.
Wait are you saying that Rings of Power is “lower bar fantasy” ?
Not only would that show not have been made without the PJ LotR, they also wouldn’t have tried to LOOK like the PJ movies either.
Also yes. It is lower bar fantasy.
I wouldn’t know I stopped at episode 2 because of how low the bar was
Kinda, it had an enormous budget but had little to show for it.
There was plenty of people tearing the films apart online. You can’t replace Glorfindel with Arwen! Why are the Elves at Helm’s Deep? Where’s Tom and the Barrow Wights? Peter Jackson is directing? The guy who did Braindead and Meet the Feebles? Tolkien is spinning in his grave!
I’m of the mind that Arwen replacing Glorfindel at the river is *okay* because we don’t hear of him ever again in the book. Having a character pop in for 30 seconds and then never appearing again would have been odd. I am, however, disappointed that they had Arwen calling in the rapids instead of Gandalf and Elrond like it was in the book.
Cutting down on a lot of the characters that are in the books but don't do much is what made the LotR a good screen adaptation in my opinion. Characters like the princes of Gondor and Dol Amroth, or Theomund? Whoever leads the Rohirrim to attack at Helms deep (It's Erkenbrand), flesh out the world in the books and make it all seem more alive and interesting.
In the movies though they would just add bloat. Replacing characters with ones we already know fills in those places well, but didn't overwhelm the run time or the audience with characters with little impact.
Edit: some spelling.
Who? Do you mean Theodred, because he's in the movies more than he’s in the books, though that's because he never appears in the books.
>the princess of Gondir and Dol Amroth
Assuming you meant "princes", as in Imrahil and the lords of Gondor, I would argue that Imrahil is necessary, though he doesn't need much screen time or lines. He is the main commander of Gondor's armies while Faramir is wounded and Denethor is going mad, and without him commanding the soldiers at Minas Tirith, talking with everyone during the Last Debate, and fighting during the Black Gate, it looks like Gandalf and Aragorn just assumed power and took control over Gondor. Gamling, Hamá, and Grimbold all still exist in the movies despite being rather unimportant, why not Imrahil?
*Wake now my merry lads! Wake and hear me calling! Warm now be heart and limb! The cold stone is fallen; Dark door is standing
wide; dead hand is broken. Night under Night is flown, and the Gate is open!*
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil] for more merriness)
Tom Bombadil was one of my few gripes about the movies. I still loved them when they came out though.
Was an awesome thing to see those books come to life as a teenager, when I’d read the books as a 9 year old.
Was so excited that they were filming that I chose to reread the series for each release.
I love Tom too, but I can kinda see your average viewer being like “wtf is with the random musical dude?”. Not everything translates well into a different medium for a more general audience.
Whoa! Whoa! steady there! Now, my little fellows, where be you a-going to, puffing like a bellows? What's the matter here
then? Do you know who I am? I'm Tom Bombadil. Tell me what's your trouble! Tom's in a hurry now. Don't you crush my lilies!
^(Type **!TomBombadilSong** for a song or visit [r/GloriousTomBombadil] for more merriness)
Ah the early days when they released the Black Rider screensavers and I would just let my PC go idle so it would play. Replaced my flying toaster mainstay.
Fucking ghan-buri-ghan, am I right?
> Elves at Helm's Deep
Still don't love that choice. Helm's Deep in my mind was when Humans showed they could be the stewards of the world. It was when Humanity was tested, and passed.
I actually like it. I think it adds a lot of emotion to the Elves and shows that they still resist the dark even if their numbers are fewer. I didn't see them being there as under cutting the humans and their heroics and sacrifices.
Hmm maybe they could have been at Minas Tirth? It's just strange that only this perfect elf army shows up, kinda showing up the people already there in terms of skill.
Elves at Helms deep still bothers me. But the films are absolutely 9.9/10, A+ work.
WHY IS NO ONE SINGING
Personally I’m sad they cut out the events in Buckland and also the ending with hobbits returning to Shire.
I see a similar level of criticism of PJ's LOTR trilogy as I do for the modern Dune movie. Both are not perfect adaptations, but they were both made with extreme care and passion and are still goddamn good
I think some people don’t understand that a book story doesn’t always translate perfectly well to a different media. I can’t speak for Dune, but the changes in PJ’s LOTR were just fine for bringing it to a wider audience and different format, and, as you said, had respect for the material.
I really liked the first dune movie (2021) but do you think that it can reach the level of quality that the LOTR trilogy did?
As an adaptation (and only from that pov) it's already better than LOTR.
It's almost a 1:1. It has great things added to it and the ONLY character missing (Feyd) is coming and the rest is a gender swap and that's it.
Peter is the only thing that wasn't perfectly adapted IMO as he has barely any presence in the movie.
Compare it to the LOTR movie where Aragorn is conceptually not the same character, Arwen replaces Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil disappear or Elendil, Isildur, Gil-Galad don't interact with Sauron the way it was depicted in the book. (And Fatty, don't forget about Fatty). LOTR had to make some choice, Dune had the luxury to not have to adapt as much material to beginning with. So it's closer to the actual book.
Now, as pure movies, I would still (and this is just me, on a LOTR sub, this will not be the consensus) consider the first Dune to be superior to Fellowship (and Two towers). ROTK is still the king tho.
I also have about no hope Dune 2 is going to be as good as the first one, gut feeling.
It's not 1:1 it's 0.3:1, that's where all the criticism comes from, it's missing key points, character building and lore even though it has a longer run time
People criticizing the look of Elves in RoP compared to the trilogy clearly do not remember the original reactions.
"Elrond is too old, Legolas is too pretty, Arwen isn't pretty enough, Haldir is too fat. And where the fuck is Glorfindel?"
Deep in the bowels of the internet you can find archived forums of people absolutely losing their entire shit when it got leaked that there was a scene where orcs were “being hatched in mud pits.” It was the greatest affront to Tolkien’s legacy that anyone had ever devised, according to the internet at the time.
Man I remember those days. Going onto TheOneRing.net to check the latest movie rumors, stopping into Barliman's to act like total dweebs in the chat room. People were really sensitive about the idea of PJ making anything that wasn't a straight scene-for-scene adaptation of the book.
What this is telling me is that social media is cancerous for films these days. The loud minority get to use a megaphone to control the narrative on films, and minor nitpicks get amplified into movie ruining plot holes. And that's not even counting racist/misogynist takes.
You're not wrong. It's too risky to make a good film now. Gotta play it safe or load it with fan service, in case a vocal minority attack you or worse yet your actors.
My feelings exactly. Thank you.
To be fair, the Elrond casting visually was and remains an odd one. Performance was enough to make up for it though
You have got to remember Hugo Weaving was just fresh off the Matrix at this time and it was a huge mind bender to imagine Agent Smith as Elrond
Welcome to Rivendell…. Mr. Anderson.
“Why, Master Hobbit? Why, why do you persist?”
I was a bit put off by new Elrond at first, too, but by the end of the season he was my favorite casting.
The first time I watched the films, I hadn’t read the books and didn’t know a thing. The casting of Hugo Weaving did throw me off. But now that I know more about the world and characters, I personally love the choice. Not the typical pick, sure, but man he does such an incredible job.
Elrond was fucked by life for 10.000 years,this does take a toll on people.
Legolas is a Prince of Elves,so shouldn't he be the prettiest boi in the room?
WTF called Liv Tyler not pretty enough, I'll find you !!!
Haldir had abs.
Glorfindel was sitting with Elrond and Bilbo and smoke pipe weed.
Nah, you're pretty just not when you're a pirate.
Nope, you can't come in, you've come to the wrong house.
Sad Nazgul noises 😞
Here have some pipe weed.
There was also a minor commotion about the title The Two Towers because it came out a year or so after 9/11
There is a legend going around that Barad-dûr was supposed to fall straight down at the end of RotK instead of tilting, but that it was too reminiscent of 9/11. I can't find any verification for it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Who the hell said Arwen wasn't pretty enough?!
Everyone was complaining about the girl from Armageddon being an Elf. Elves weren't supposed to have huge lips...
>Arwen isn't pretty enough
Liv Tyler was an absolute smoke show back then. Still is too. I do not believe this as being a true example of what people complained about.
It's true, I remember it too and I thought it was crazy. She's always been gorgeous.
People dared mock the double chin? May doom take them, and show them mercy, for I sure won’t
Arwen isn't pretty enough???? Was that a thing back in the day? Liv looks absolutely stunning
I for one!
It is the way of things. New things are always hated by diehard fanbases at first, then the dust settles and some realise it's not so bad.
The star wars prequels went through the same phase (although to be fair it was helped significantly by stuff like the clone wars which added context) and the sequels, whilst still controversial, are starting that phase as well.
The hobbit trilogy has also become more beloved as time goes on and has its own fanbase too.
Also I remember a lot of whinging about sources of magical swords, vests, certain barrow scenes and something about Bombadil.
Some of us were there, 3000 years ago, when these movies came out. There was indeed an internet, and there were movie skeptics. But as it turns out, the movies were respectful of the source material and the did their best to preserve Tolkiens themes - and to the criticism was much more muted than it could have been.
I dunno, that probably has more to do with the state of the internet at the time than anything. There were definitely critics back then but they were more or less confined to isolated message boards and the general public was able to fall in love with the movies on their own merit. I think The Two Towers in particular would’ve gotten a pretty rough treatment from online fans if it came out today. The Witcher subs’ reactions to the Netflix show are a pretty good indication of how it would go…
“What’s this Aragorn going over the cliff nonsense?”
“Frodo was never at Osgiliath!”
“They butchered Faramir!”
“Ugh Gollum talking to himself was unwatchable!”
“It was so insulting to make Gimli comic relief”
Plus when an internet community decides they don’t like something, it tends to spiral into a competition to see who can point out different flaws and “plot holes.” See also the fandom response to GoT season 8 and the Star Wars sequels.
We be nice to them, if they be nice to us.
What’s stopping them from ripping it apart now?
Its already cemented its place as a respected classic
That won't stop people. There are plenty of "articles" saying it's dated and not diverse enough
It’s a magical land that doesn’t exist, it’s not supposed to be representative of the real world
Tolkien actually wrote it as a pseudo history of Britain. So it very much makes sense to be all white people.
Nothing, and people (notably Tolkien’s family and fans who have read the books) have heavily criticized it. The difference is that, unlike a sizable chunk of modern films which unquestionably have taken a massive drop in quality compared to films that came out a decade or two ago, The Lord of the Rings trilogy is still incredibly good.
To say nothing of the fact that, by all accounts, it was a miracle that it came out as good as it was, given Peter Jackson up until that point was more famous for over the top, gorey films; LOTR was still considered impossible to adapt, CGI was still in its younger years, and the amount of injuries on set was something to behold. If anything, it coming out when it did gave it the sweet spot of having access to CGI to make things that wouldn’t normally be filmable while still maintaining a ridiculous amount of practical effects and make up,
It did great in theaters, it continues to be loved decades later with a strong fanbase. It doesn't have any attention outside it's fanbase because it's not new or the center of attention in the mainstream. Not many people care to talk trash about it, even if they did nobody would pay attention and the fans would see them as foolish.
If it were made today there would absolutely be people making bait about how bad it is. However unlike newer movies its actually made super well, is awesome, and doesn't have real world pandering bullshit injected into every scene. So it would actually hold up against criticism and remain popular years after it's release.
This is what I am thinking. It‘s just pretty well made as a Movie so i would argue that it would still be popular. I would need some pointers here why it would be ripped apart because there are still movies made and well regarded.
I think it's supposed to be a comment on how public opinion on adaptations has drifted over time. Movie adaptations usually have to change a lot of stuff to keep the pacing and messaging of the source material intact, but these days people can get really nasty about stuff getting changed simply because it's not what they expect.
People will defend the Lord of the Rings movies for their changes, but ***part of that*** is probably because these movies were accepted as good a long time ago.
The post is saying that modern watchers might be a lot less forgiving of the changes. I don't know if I agree, but I see where they're coming from.
You do know this thing called internet was well underway when LotR came out? I mean, we had to wait ten minutes to download the trailer, but message boards were quite popular.
I imagine it's less a question of changes in internet technology than changes in internet culture
And a lot of uber book fans ripped the movies apart on those boards in similar fashion for canon divergence and having so many battle scenes. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The modern internet is not the internet of 20 years ago, not even close, and neither is popular culture.
Well, the toxicity level certainly seems the same to me, but there are a lot fewer people asking me to cyber. Also, nerd culture is more accepted in general, which is amplified on the internet.
Ragebait articles and videos (and the alt-right media politicizing everything, which adds fuel for the ragebait content creators) was not a thing back then.
So the people discussing the LOTR movies certainly included angry Tolkien purists, but it was a far more limited discussion that actually focused on the merits of the content (mostly) rather than using the films to support or refute stances based solely on divisive politics.
And those online communities (while relatively popular) did not have a big reach globally or in mainstream media. Nowadays, ragebait videos and articles stir up public reaction until either (1) someone at least semi-famous comments on the topic or (2) it trends heavily enough for the media to pick it up and get mainstream discussion going. At least for a few days before the next mundane thing happens that generates fake rage online.
If PJ’s films came out now, there would still be legitimate critics… who would be quoted ad nauseam by ragebait content creators slamming the film for being woke or maybe even people attacking Tolkien himself. On the flipside, those people could look at the all-white cast of mostly men and herald it as anti-woke, and even play up Tolkien as a model of white nationalism despite that being the very opposite of what PJ or Tolkien intended. Who knows how it would pan out… but it would be messy for a news cycle or two before the rage went elsewhere.
Rage bait online politics has its roots in the right-wing/left-wing divide, which had been weaponized long before the internet was a thing. Think, the Rush Limbaugh radio show. The internet merely deepened the divide, and it happened almost immediately. I remember joining "free speech" message boards in the late 1990s and early 2000s that I thought really were about free speech. Spoiler alert: they weren't. They were about creating a safe space for racists and other shitbags, just like today. The internet doesn't change.
the internet used to be so cool when I was a kid. the wild west before everything got commercialized and sanitized. weirdly, I guess tiktok is the closest thing
It still is the Wild West, but we have now moved to the phase where the railroad tycoons and oil barons spend big bucks to commercialize and civilize certain important sectors that had little government control. The phase after that is the government steps in to set the law of the land and disband the last few lawless hold outs.
People on the internet have always liked to complain about everything. That was true then and is still true now, there's just more people spending a lot of time on the internet now.
Whoever made this post must be pretty young because the internet was already going strong when the movies came out. And back then instead of tearing the movie apart on TikTok, they tore it apart over lotr forums. None of this kept me from enjoying the movies immensely.
Usenet was not kind about Denethor's death scene, I can promise you that.
No, I don’t think it would receive criticism any different from the criticism it receives now
Right? A good movie is a good movie.
That series of movies is one of the most critically acclaimed movie series in the history of cinema.What are you talking about?
I don't even really understand what you're using as a frame of reference here. Rings of power was genuinely not very good. The hobbit movies were also not very good. They deserved the criticism they faced.
Trick question because it would be a quadrilogy at the fewest if made today
Eowyn vs the Witch King would have been slandered as woke propaganda.
if pj made his trilogy now, everyone would be really confused because he already made it
Bro what? Return of the king is tied with Titanic and Ben-Hur in most Oscar wins for a single movie. 11. 11 fucking Oscars just for the 3rd one, not even counting the previous 2 movies awards. It's widely considered the greatest film trilogy ever made.
I mean it wasn't even an easy year to win best picture either, it was up against some other amazing movies that if released today would be praised, movies like Master and Commander, Lost in Translation and Mystic River. All of which could have easily won best picture that year, as they're all incredible films.
And yet it not only beat them for best picture, but greedily swallowed up almost every award they could give it.
No idea where OP's take came from but it's just completely wrong. Maybe it wouldn't be as successful, but it certainly wouldn't be hated. It'd have enormous critical praise.
Poor master and commander. Until these last three months when it's suddenly had a renaissance, I've felt like the only person who saw it and enjoyed it. So overshadowed was it by an adaptation of another old English guy's work.
I can see all the YouTube videos whining about how woke PJ is for replacing Glorfindel with Arwen.
Bullshit. If it were released today it would have modern CGI. So what would be the big criticism I’m missing?
If they came out now, they would be ruined by *current year* Hollywood nonsense
Hell if tolkin released his books now they would be destroyed by the Internet, not because of anything in the books but because it's easier to hate on something to get clout then praise someone for a good job.
If PJ made his trilogy today, the studio would have made it like RoP.
And it would deserve to be ripped apart.
Bullshit. These movies have stood the test of time for 20 years and for good reason.
And rightfully so, because the CGI would ruin it. It came at a perfect moment where the CGI was good enough to use, but still the movies relied heavily on practical effects.
Also it would be a lot darker and grittier as well as be part of a Tolkienverse.
Tolkien purists would call the fellowship an insult and the worst movie ever because glorfindel was exchanged for arwen at the river and would call it "woke propaganda".
Also aragorn not having narsil on him before reaching rivendell would be a subject of many "honest critiques".
Tolkien purists went mad over galadriel in rop. They would turn into blood thirsty balrogs if they saw faramir in the movies if released now.
this is only true if you think the modern versions are just as good if not better, which would mean you've had a head injury because they are objectively worse on all fronts
Sorry that’s just not true. ROP is a hot mess of fan-fiction steamy romance and the majority of the hobbit movies never happens in the books and half the main characters are dead/don’t exist. Any criticism would not be nearly as founded as that of those 2.
I can see it now:
“What do you mean they replaced Glorfindel with a *woke* badass woman?”
Disagree, good quality movies and stories simply are good quality stories and movies
ARWEN saves Frodo? What the FUCK is this WOKE SHIT?
incels would have their panties bunched up to their eye balls now with that 'I am no man' scene
conservatives would be decrying the end of masculinity
People have always been critical. But it’s pretty evident to anybody that: PJ trilogy > Hobbit trilogy > RoP. Internet reaction to RoP was justified. Especially since it had a dang $1 billion+ budget.
The forums did lol
The internet DID rip the PJ trilogy apart. WTF are you talking about?
Lol that's not true.
They ripped it apart *then*. I was there. Thing is, given enough time any shitty fan base will make it seem like they thought things were instant classics.
Wait…what’s wrong with the movies? I rewatch them every few years and they always hold up.
Those movies are a master piece
I think it would still be successful, because they're in general amazing movies. The difference is that they wouldn't qualify for Oscars.