"Watched War of the Rohirrim" Topic

First, let it be said I am a pretty big fan.
I have read the books more than once (starting in Jr High in the 1970s) and own lots of LotR miniatures.
I remember when the Bakshi movie came out – again I was in high school – and enjoyed it enough for its time, even though parts of it were disappointing.
Loved the Jackson films – even liked The Hobbit (Loved how Bilbo was played).
However, I haven't been able to bring myself to watc 'Rings of Power." But I digress.
A couple of my adult sons convicned me to watch "War of the Rohirrim."
It was OKish. Some parts were kind of cool. Others pretty cringe-worthy.
Anybody else see it?

I watched the Critical Drinker's review on youtube. But that probably doesn't count.

So did I (before the movie). I am a big fan of the Drinker's reviews. He was pretty much spot on from my point of vieew/

When it comes to modern Hollywood messing with Tolkien--with anything classic and well-written, actually--I tend to take the Spock approach.

You forgot? "When I release a hammer in a high-gravity environment, I do not need to hear it hit the floor to know that it wil fall."

(Those wishing to discuss magnets and tractor beams can see me after class.)

It was "fine"

I didn't sense an overt Mary Sue so that was also great.

TMP link

I confess I'm pretty much done with Tolkien film projects. After the bloated mess that was the Hobbit trilogy, my bar was set low for Rings of Power. Some of it was OK, a lot wasn't.

I have no interest in War of the Rohirrim. I intend to miss Hunt for Gollum. Enough, already.

I would suggest that production companies should interpret JRRT's works as they are into film and streaming *without* "improving" or doing an "update for modern audiences."

Tolkien's works, AS THEY ARE, have sold 600 MILLION copies in x87 languages.

Gee, if we only had a way of testing the potential success for Middle Earth stuff that tries to stay true to JRRT's writings, or when the production goes off on its own…oh wait, we do!!

We have a real-world market test -- two movie series produced by the same guy, eliminating a difference in producers as a factor in outcome.

1. Sample A – LOTR Trilogy by Peter Jackson tried to stay as true to JRRT's books as practical, with some creative license. Some of the top grossing films of all time, widely acclaimed. P/E ratio is about 10:1 – cost $300 USDM to film, earned~$3 Billion.

2. Sample B – Hobbit Trilogy by Peter Jackson deviated broadly from JRRT's book, with much creative license to "improve" on JRRT's story with new characters and content. Made lots of cash, but not at the same ratio as LOTR, widely mocked by fans. P/E ratio is about 4:1 – cost almost $800 USDM to film, earned ~$3 Billion.

Metacritic reviews rank the films based on year of release:

1. LOTR Return of the King – 94 rating, ranked #1 for the 2003 release year

2. LOTR Fellowship of the Ring – 92 rating, ranked #2 for the 2001 release year

3. LOTR The Two Towers – 87 rating, ranked #6 for the 2002 release year

4. Hobbit The Desolation of Smaug – 66 rating, ranked #201 for the 2012 release year

5. Hobbit Battle of Five Armies – 59 rating, ranked #308 for the 2014 release year

6. Hobbit – Unexpected Journey – 58 rating, ranked #298 for the 2012 release year

Results:
*Each of the LOTR movies were among the top-rated movies in their release years and earned 10x.
*The LOTR movies won some 475 film awards across the Trilogy, including x4 Oscars (Best Cinematography, Best Make-up, Best Visual Effects, Best Original Film Score).

*Each of Hobbit movies were among the most poorly rated movies in their release years and earned just 3x-4x.
*The Hobbit movies earned just 43 film awards across the Trilogy, including one Oscar (Best Scientific & Technical Advancement for new production processes)

SBSMinisguy, wow – I did not realise PJ had tried to stick close to LotR.

I always felt they were a bit of a hack job, with loads of changes from JRRT's script…

Fellowship was pretty close, Two Towers was where they just invented and invented and felt quite poor. Return of the king – probably 75% Tolkien, but did things like killing the mouth of Sauron which destroyed Aragorn's nobility.

The worst things for me with the Hobbit was the comic portrayal of the dwarves, the battle with the storm giants, the dwarf/elf love affair, Dain and his army…all the side stuff with the white company I liked – weaving it in with the Hobbit was "historically" correct.

@Royston Papworth – despite changes, the LOTR film trilogy is about the best adaptation you could hope for, taking almost 1200 pages of text into three movies. Many of the changes make sense when explained -- like the Elves at Helm's Deep. Jackson couldn't show the battles in Mirkwood and Dale that involved an alliance of Elves, Dwarves and Men since it was a relative sideshow that would distract from the main events, so he had some Elves at Helm's Deep to portray this alliance – and they didn't change the outcome. Also, the Scouring of the Shire was only alluded to in Frodo's vision because it would break the typical movie flow where you build to dramatic climax moment and then wind down. To wind things back up and do the Scouring would have added 30min of runtime and confused the audience.

Anyways, that's what I think.

The one thing wrong with the LOTR trilogy was that they never gave it an ending…

Thank Eru the LOTR trilogy was made in pre-woke days.

I was at a dance event and I was sitting at a table of teens and twenty year olds and they were all talking about Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I said that they couldn't make that movie today and one the girls said, yes, they would have made it DEI and ruined it and then everyone at the table totally agreed with that.

🙄

So, there is hope.

Now, about that dance event..?