Can someone please explain why this trilogy is held in such high regard? The acting is bad and often laughable. It's really hard to take Elijah Wood seriously because he's constantly overacting. The characters are annoying and lack complexity; they're basically the most generic fantasy archetypes you can imagine. Gimli is especially irritating—he's only there for comic relief.
The action scenes feel like typical capeshit spectacle, and the special effects have aged poorly. They kill hundreds of orcs without any real effort, and there's never a true sense of danger.
It's time to admit that these movies are just capeshit tier junk, on the same level as Star Wars. Look past the nostalgia and you will realize these movies suck really bad. Please watch more films and stop pretending these are good movies, let alone masterpieces.
>>212177509 (OP)When you weren't watching the prequels you watched LOTR
>>212177509 (OP)>they're basically the most generic fantasy archetypes you can imaginethe bait was almost decent, but you overshot it with this line
>>212177509 (OP)Now, now anons... Let's hear him out. What movies WOULD you consider 'good' or 'masterpieces'?
>>212177509 (OP)What bothers me the most is how everything is black and white and how everyone can fight like 50 orcs by themselves, even hobbits who never fought or trained before.
The orcs have a massive advantage, war machinery, elephants etc and they still lose because...?
>>212177509 (OP)Name a better fantasy movie trilogy. I'll wait
It's a white mans fantasy. Brown people cannot grasp the concept
>>212177753La Vie Nouvelle
Passion of Joan of Arc
Mirror
Marketa Lazarova
The Fall of the house of usher (1928)
Stop watching Hollywood trash
>>212178390lmao...
Nobody thinks you're smart, buddy
I don't get why it's popular in general. Tolkien's worldbuilding is SHIT. The great bulk of it is family trees and philology. He doesn't EVER elaborate on how Gondorians think and feel, their cultural practices and so on and how these might differ from the men of Rohan. Or what really differentiates a dark elf from a high elf beyond the journeys their ancestors took. We know next to nothing about what actually constitutes an orc, and EVEN LESS about the Easterlings and the people of Khand.
He also tends to brush off pivotal battles as if they were nothing of importance. Everything builds up to a conflict, and he either skips over the thing or gives you a laundry list account without any real narrative dynamic. Then he focuses on what's really important: describing a tree for 10 fucking pages.
Ironically though, despite his detailed descriptions, Middle-Earth is STILL lifeless in many ways. Thousands of years pass in the story and absolutely nothing happens, like the world's been paused. There are thousands of miles of wilderness between civilizations that should've realistically expanded that are just described as empty. Had he spent less pages describing what the left dwarf on the right's green button looked like and given more attention to substance then LOTR would've been much better books. But no, they are, in fact, verbose GARBAGE.
>>212180792Based. The LOTR books are tripe only enjoyed by stoner dweebs.
>>212177509 (OP)It isn't. It's a shitty trilogy. The prequels are way better, jeet
desu film is pretty cool, especially if you are like 13, but it goes downhill so badly after first movie, or even after half of the first movie, when i were a kid i thought it was just so stupid the whole green cgi army out of ass, overrated asf
>>212177509 (OP)>The acting is bad and often laughableExaggeration
>It's really hard to take Elijah Wood seriously because he's constantly overactingHe is a hobbit, the smallest of all creatures
>The characters are annoying and lack complexity; they're basically the most generic fantasy archetypes you can imagine.They ARE the fantasy archetypes. Not a copy of fantasy archetypes but the original fantasy archetypes themself.
>Gimli is especially irritating—he's only there for comic relief. /tv/ discovers comic relief
