re: Lord of the Rings Trilogy: Disappointing

quote:

---

I said, it was disappointing and far too drawn-out than it needed to be.

---

Aside from developing characters, what would you have cut?

quote:

---

It wasn't a bad movie, but far from a "masterpiece trilogy".

---

Its the most consistent great trilogy of all time. Can't think of any other trilogy that is on its level of quality so consistently since most great trilogies tend to shite the bed on the final act.

quote:

---

It was the same movie stretched over three films for the purposes of making more money. I've been condemnded over this, but it is what it is.

---

Well of course you are going to be condemned for thinking it because your reasoning is unbelievably fricking stupid. Please tell me why this film was stretched out for money making decisions over creative decisions? If that was true, the first film would be 2 hours long and they would have filmed it separately. The second would also be two hours long, with The Return of the King being divided into two other films for its grand finale, each being even shorter than the previous two films.

The fact is all 3 films were filmed simultaneously, they were each over 3 hours long with an extra hour planned on adding to each of the Extended Edition DVDs, it was filmed by a largely unknown horror movie director, the cast had no A-listers, fantasy was a pretty dead genre at the time it was greenlit, and it was known as THE unadapatable book to the big screen. So please tell me why the films were stretched out and were formulated to make as much money as possible, rather than making as it as incredible of a film they could have possibly made? I'd love to hear your reasoning.