Am I the only person who didn't like the LotR movies?

[Arslan Aladeen]

Huh. Someone hasn't put up that Critical Miss comic yet. Anyway, no you're not alone. I thought there were long and boring and I didn't care about anything that was going on. When people who liked it tell me that's it's following the books, it just makes me not want to read the books, not appreciate the movies more.

 

[Bad Jim]

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire.

Why did the eagles fight in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit then?

I'm fairly sure that wiping out a good chunk of what's left of Durin's line, all of the men from Lake-Town, and most of the elven warriors of Mirkwood counts as "dire"

But that's still a lot less dire than Sauron taking over Middle Earth, killing/enslaving all humans, dwarves, ents, hobbits etc.

Just have to accept it. I agree with your opinions you have. But in the end you just have to accept it and go along with the story.

I do like LOTR. Tolkien couldn't think of everything I guess. It's just that I think they should have addressed that plot hole in the movie. Just a mention of the eagles at the Council of Elrond and some explanation for why they couldn't carry it would have been sufficient. Doesn't matter if they did a minor retcon.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I found parts of them boring. I find parts of them good.

I found parts of the book boring. I find parts of them good.

It's only natural that both boring bits drag on and the constant inaction ruin the experience of some people. And the books aren't as special as people make them out. I've read them, and they're good. Not legendary.

Like the Bible. It's understandable people worship this book. But when someone makes fun of it, they're immediately flamed with being calling a bigot. Harry Potter is probably just as popular as the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran of whatever by now. Nad you can burn that book just fine.

But all in all, the book isn't very good. It speaks of faschism and weird stuff I'm not sure how to understand.

 

[Uhura]

The films are imo pretty 'meh'. I loved the Fellowship when it first came out and I still think it's the best out of the three movies. Nowadays, I just prefer watching the making-of videos instead of the actual films. I definitely dislike the Hobbit though. I didn't find it engaging at all.

 

[jesse220]

I deliberately avoided the eagle issue because it's been talked to death. Hell, I've debated it at least a dozen times and I don't even like the movies. What is it about this one plot hole that people just can't let it go?

 

[floppylobster]

6 billion people and you're the only one. You must feel very special.

But seriously, I like the Two Towers but don't like the other two at all. But I love the Two Towers. Watched it 6 times at the cinema. Yet I never want to watch the Fellowship or Return of the King again. Didn't mind the first half of the Hobbit but once the trolls came in to it I started to like it less and less. Peter Jackson just can't do humour very well. And this is coming from a New Zealander who should be tuned in to his sense of humor.

In truth I think the mines scene in Fellowship, and the final fight in the forest, is pretty good. The battle at the end of the Return of the King is okay but just a bigger rehash of the the one at Helm's Deep. But otherwise those two films bored me to tears while the Two Towers remains one of my favourite movies of all time. But only the theatrical release. The extended edition just starts to bore me again.

 

[JaceArveduin]

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire.

Why did the eagles fight in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit then?

I'm fairly sure that wiping out a good chunk of what's left of Durin's line, all of the men from Lake-Town, and most of the elven warriors of Mirkwood counts as "dire"

But that's still a lot less dire than Sauron taking over Middle Earth, killing/enslaving all humans, dwarves, ents, hobbits etc.

True, but Frodo didn't need the Eagle's help to destroy the ring. The eagles only showed up to save Aragorn/the army of the Free Peoples, and later went and saved Sam and Frodo after they'd finished their quest.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Loved it despite the shallow characterization, silly action (Legolas riding a shield as a skateboard, Aragorn diving into a spearwall of Orcs), and absence of the Battle of Hobbiton. But hey, movie to book.

Not everyone is going to enjoy it and overlook its flaws.

 

[Fox12]

I deliberately avoided the eagle issue because it's been talked to death. Hell, I've debated it at least a dozen times and I don't even like the movies. What is it about this one plot hole that people just can't let it go?

It's not really a plot hole though. The eagles can't carry the ring for the same reason nobody else can. They'd want to steal it for themselves.

 

[prpshrt]

Yea it's pretty much just you. Just Kidding. I like them but, I can also see why someone would absolutely dislike the movies if fantasy isn't just their thing. Frankly it could potentially be insanely unbearable if you weren't into medieval fantasy. My brother's more of a sci-fi kind of person and he hates LOTR

 

[jesse220]

I deliberately avoided the eagle issue because it's been talked to death. Hell, I've debated it at least a dozen times and I don't even like the movies. What is it about this one plot hole that people just can't let it go?

It's not really a plot hole though. The eagles can't carry the ring for the same reason nobody else can. They'd want to steal it for themselves.

Couldn't they just carry frodo who in turn carries the ring, like they do with bilbo in the hobbit? And speaking of bilbo, why don't the deatheaters come for him in the hobbit? And why don't his buddies try to kill him like sean beam does to frodo? He is surrounded by people willing to take on a dragon in order to get some treasure, surely they're greedy enough for the ring to affect them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Social commentary is done through analogy/allegory all the time., I would say more often than not.

Certainly...one of the more obvious examples being that episode of Star Trek where the people who were white on one side and black on the other are fighting the people who are the other way around.

That episode could get away with it because they had a diverse group of human characters.

Using analogy to make social commentary about diversity is fine. Doing that while making sure not to actually have any doesn't work.

Personally, I'd have liked to have seen more diversity in the film, as not-European fantasies films end up looking much the same, though this is the fault of Tolkien's endless tiresome imitators. I think it might have worked better to have the elves and dwarves as different ethnic groups from the humans.

But if they don't do that, then they don't do that, whatever. But to turn around afterwards and make a play at saying something about racism...no.

 

[KeyMaster45]

*snip*

No, you're not the only one and I can prove it with a scene from Clerks 2. Warning, this scene is very vulgar. Very vulgar

 

[jesse220]

Certainly...one of the more obvious examples being that episode of Star Trek where the people who were white on one side and black on the other are fighting the people who are the other way around.

That episode could get away with it because they had a diverse group of human characters.

Using analogy to make social commentary about diversity is fine. Doing that while making sure not to actually have any doesn't work.

Personally, I'd have liked to have seen more diversity in the film, as not-European fantasies films end up looking much the same, though this is the fault of Tolkien's endless tiresome imitators. I think it might have worked better to have the elves and dwarves as different ethnic groups from the humans.

But if they don't do that, then they don't do that, whatever. But to turn around afterwards and make a play at saying something about racism...no.

Oh, you're just saying 'practice what you preach'? Yeah I agree with that especially in such a big cast & variety of made up races. I thought you were trying to say that subtext was somehow a bad way to convey a message or something.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Oh, you're just saying 'practice what you preach'? Yeah I agree with that especially in such a big cast & variety of made up races.

More or less, yeah. Especially nowdays, I could understand it in the 50s or 60s or something, but times have changed.

 

[Fox12]

I deliberately avoided the eagle issue because it's been talked to death. Hell, I've debated it at least a dozen times and I don't even like the movies. What is it about this one plot hole that people just can't let it go?

It's not really a plot hole though. The eagles can't carry the ring for the same reason nobody else can. They'd want to steal it for themselves.

Couldn't they just carry frodo who in turn carries the ring, like they do with bilbo in the hobbit? And speaking of bilbo, why don't the deatheaters come for him in the hobbit? And why don't his buddies try to kill him like sean beam does to frodo? He is surrounded by people willing to take on a dragon in order to get some treasure, surely they're greedy enough for the ring to affect them.

Well, Sauron was still in hiding during The Hobbit book, so the ring didn't want to reveal itself yet. It used Bilbo to get out of the cave, but otherwise it was happy to wait until Sauron returned.

As for the eagles, I think it was more of a plot hole with the films then the books. Both have the giant dragon guys, who could easily kill the eagles. Sauron would also see the eagles coming a mile away, that's why they had to sneak into Mordor undetected. In the films they basically throw this out the window though, so I'll give you that.

 

[BQE]

There may be need to be a new forum law instated that prohibits any topic from starting with "Am I the only one that X?". I'm willing to say outright that someone on this forum most likely shares your exact opinion so I might suggest a more creative way to start a topic rather than eliciting people's defense of something they may like.

As for the movies at hand, I thought they were alright honestly. I compared Sauron to the Lich King, and judging by how much I hate how the Lich King died, Sauron's death was worse by several orders of magnitude. I also don't believe any movie needs to be that long, just a personal opinion.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

The simple answer to the eagles is that Manwe only let's them interfere whenever the situation is at it's most dire.

Why did the eagles fight in the Battle of Five Armies in The Hobbit then?

The journey to the Lonely Mountain was a concentrated plan on the part of Gandalf to preemptively curtail a power-grab by Sauron in that region of Middle-Earth, and the Battle of the Five Armies was the tail end of that effort. He had a plan to reestablish the Dwarves at the Lonely Mountain as a buffer against any encroaching invasion from the east (there was actually an extended siege there that played an important role during the War of the Ring). He also counted on drawing the goblins out of the Misty Mountains to weaken their hold on the High Pass, an important access point between east and west.

The Battle of the Five Armies was planned from the start, and given the importance of his mission and his status as a messenger of the Valar, Gandalf was allowed open access to the Eagles.

There ya go!

 

[madwarper]

Couldn't they just carry frodo who in turn carries the ring, like they do with bilbo in the hobbit? And speaking of bilbo, why don't the deatheaters come for him in the hobbit? And why don't his buddies try to kill him like sean beam does to frodo? He is surrounded by people willing to take on a dragon in order to get some treasure, surely they're greedy enough for the ring to affect them.

You are aware that the Hobbit was written as a stand-alone story... Right?

It was only after the Hobbit was published, and with much encouragement from his colleagues that Tolkien set out to expand upon the world and created the Lord of the Rings and what would become the Silmarillion. Thus, you can't take the events of the Hobbit to be reflective of the wider world that had yet to be conceived.

But, in the LotR the Eagles were the eyes and ears of Manwe. The Valar, having twice already waged war in Middle Earth against Melkor, deemed Sauron a mere threat and only dispatched the Istari to aid the Free Peoples in combating it. Besides, Sauron had air dominance surrounding Mordor and riding an Eagle to Mount Doom would have been akin to handing the Ring over on a silver platter.

 

[Rblade]

"why couldn't they just fly into mordor"

lets see.
-tens of thousands of orcs, most with bows, they are large eagles, by no means immortal.
-9 ring wraiths on flying snakes. Let us not forget that the witch king was already dead when the eagles fought them in the final scene.
-It is clearly established that if Saurons eye is fixed on the ring bearer he will turn on a dime and hand it in. "I'm naked in the dark. There's nothing. No veil between me and the wheel of fire! I can see him... with my waking eyes!" etc. Thats what the entire siege of the black gate was about.
-Just offering the ring to Galadriel turned her into some kind of angel of death, and she is pretty much the purest and one of the most powerfull beings in the realm. Gandalf fears it intently. So literally nobody but the hobbits can handle it, and they might be brave but they are still 3/4 feet tall.

failure to think about it doesn't make it a plothole