LOTR, why are they loved so much? [Archive]

General Zod

12-12-2003, 22:06

Originally posted by James45
I can appreciate that people may not hold them in as high regard as others, but average is not a word that could used about these films by any sane person.

Why not exactly?

I was never bowled over by FOTR but at least it was fairly faithful to the book. TTT however was less impressive still, with it's apparent sole aim of getting us to the obligatory Really Big Battle at the end, coupled with various painful moments where Jackson added his own material or ideas and indulged in a couple of character assassinations; and judging from what I've heard about ROTK, it'll be largely the same as TTT (not content with Faramir, Jackson has wrecked Denethor too, left the Faramir and Eowyn relationship out, and even decided to throw out the most cinematic scene in the entire damn book, ie the scene where Gandalf confronts the Witch King, who is silhouetted against flames, at the gate of Minas Tirith).

I think 'Excalibur' is a classic

I'm with you there. It has it's share of flaws, but it draws me in far more than LOTR ever has.

James45

12-12-2003, 22:22

[QUOTE]Originally posted by General Zod
[B]Why not exactly?

I was never bowled over by FOTR but at least it was fairly faithful to the book. TTT however was less impressive still, with it's apparent sole aim of getting us to the obligatory Really Big Battle at the end, coupled with various painful moments where Jackson added his own material or ideas and indulged in a couple of character assassinations; and judging from what I've heard about ROTK, it'll be largely the same as TTT (not content with Faramir, Jackson has wrecked Denethor too, left the Faramir and Eowyn relationship out, and even decided to throw out the most cinematic scene in the entire damn book, ie the scene where Gandalf confronts the Witch King, who is silhouetted against flames, at the gate of Minas Tirith).

Because it's a labour of love by the majority of the cast and crew and it shows. It's not a project where those involved have simply signed on the dotted line and counted the days until their involvement was over, like so many average films.

Jackson has said on countless occassions that this is his adaptation, not a word for word, scene for scene translation. You could never do that kind of LOTR film, it wouldn't work. Personally the only scenes I felt uncomfortable with were the comedy Legolas/Gimli scenes (and Legolas flipping into that horse). That was until I caught up on reading the books and realised that Tolkien had introduced many of these himself (the headcount at Helm's Deep for instance).

As for changing the characters I feel this is explained in full in the Two Towers EE extras and I agree putting Faramir on screen as he appeared in the book wouldn't work either. I think the adaptations have been first rate in bringing a difficult text to the screen. Would you deny that featuring the Scouring of the Shire in the films would have killed the pacing of the ROTK?

Byron

12-12-2003, 22:25

I think with adaptations it's a definite plus if you're able to watch it fresh, instead of continually comparing it with the books.

I actually enjoy it when a director does something different with the film. All the Hughes Brothers' madcap From Hell shared with Alan Moore's book was a title and character names, but once I realised they were going in a completely different direction with the same conceit, I settled back and really enjoyed it. I've already read the book after all, so I don't see much point in transposing it word for word!

From what I gather, 'Lord of the Rings' wasn't as drastic a change, but I think the same theory can apply.

'Excalibur' is insane, but that's why I rate it so. :D

Guiness

12-12-2003, 22:27

Originally posted by shenbop
LOTR, why are they loved so much?

Tellingly, it's hard to get a good answer out of fans.

It's just a fad, it'll pass.

James45

12-12-2003, 22:31

my word... your aragonce :D know no bounds when it comes to these films Guiness! I'm glad there's someone out there that has such a clear view of the future.

General Zod

12-12-2003, 22:46

Jackson has said on countless occassions that this is his adaptation, not a word for word, scene for scene translation. You could never do that kind of LOTR film, it wouldn't work.

Of course not, you'd need a three hour film to show the Hobbits just getting to Bree. But if Jackson had tried to follow the book of TTT more (and I can easily think of ways he could have done that), and not added his own bits, it would have been a great improvement.

As for changing the characters I feel this is explained in full in the Two Towers EE extras and I agree putting Faramir on screen as he appeared in the book wouldn't work either.

It may be explained in full, but I don't think that explanation necessarily holds water. Book Faramir is meant to be very much like Aragorn, almost pure Numenorean. Both Faramir and Boromir are dedicated soldiers, but Faramir is more thoughtful and measured by far than Boromir, who's impulsive and eager to win glory for himself, and I think Jackson didn't really understand this.

I think the adaptations have been first rate in bringing a difficult text to the screen. Would you deny that featuring the Scouring of the Shire in the films would have killed the pacing of the ROTK? [/B]

I have to admit I'm up in the air about whether it would be a bit of an anti-climax. However, I feel it deals with several important plot points and themes (Hobbits learning to look after themselves rather than relying on others plus that they are part of a wider world, the ultimate degradation and fate of Saruman and Wormtongue, and the idea that there's rarely a happy ending - The Scouring, together with the Grey Havens, really hammers this home).

mjb1975

12-12-2003, 22:52

I read the first book after seeing FOTR and found it very heavy going - surprised I lasted till the end. I'm not even bothering with the other two.

I've no idea how faithful they are to the books and I really couldn't give two hoots either. The movies are OK, enjoyable, bit long, well made, etc. No more than that IMO.

I too really wanted to get caught up in the hype and yes I would say I enjoyed them, but no more than a huge list of movies I could mention.

I've only just recently unwrapped (and watched) my EE of FOTR and I dunno when I'll get around to the EE of TTT, let alone seeing ROTK at all.

I could quite happily survive if I don't see the end anyway, or ever see the first two again.

mattwakeman

12-12-2003, 22:58

Because they are an awesome adaptation of books which many people looked at but could never get onto the screen. Because they have special effects with a story that has character and heart. Because they are simply stunning.

Cornelius

12-12-2003, 23:12

The book is overated, the films are pure genius.

LeftHandedGuitarist

12-12-2003, 23:26

I love them because they're just escapism of the purest kind. The books contain an absolutely wonderful story which I never found boring, and the films have translated them into an awe-inspiring epic containing incredible special effects, and very good acting, with an emotional storyline (ie, everything that most movies of this type fail at). You just fall in love with the cast and the scenery and the whole thing blends together perfectly. I am honestly confused as to how anyone cannot love these movies, but obviously these people do exist.

Johnny_Dangerously

12-12-2003, 23:30

For me personally I think one of the things that seals the 'love' of the movies is the score. Howard Shore did a top job with the music in the first movie and I think that the score is usually the thing that separates good from great.

Just my opinion of course but I have no problems with what PJ has done with the story. There is no way he could fit everything in and it will never replace the book, its just an interpretation of it.

I bet 'A beautiful mind' was not much like the real life of John Forbes Nash Jr. either but no one seems to complain about that.

GAmbrose

12-12-2003, 23:36

If you listen to the commentary or watch the documentarys on the Extended DVD's, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens who adapted most of it defend themselves against people's complaints about not being faithful to the book, The Two Towers in particular.

Now, I admit I have not read the books and if you are not a fan of the movies then you are hardly likely to buy the DVD's and listen to the commentary, but their argues seem to make sense.

I'll summarise some of it:

Faramir - They've spent 4 1/2 hours showing that the Ring is one of the most powerful and evil things in Middle Earth and then along comes a character who is completely immune to it's power and never even thinks about using it - On film that would have completely undermined the Rings potency.

The Elves (Elfs?) at Helms Deep - In the book it's just the people of Rohan, along with Aragorn that are defending from the Orc Army. There are mentions that the Elves are holding the lines to the north but it doesn't go into much detail other than to say Lothlorian is Burning and Rivendell is under attack. They spend about 30 minutes on the build up to the Helms Deep battle and make it seem as if there is very little hope that they can win. A small band of Elves turn up to rekindle the alliance of old and it gets a cheer in the cinema. The odds are still stacked against them, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Aragorn going over the cliff after the Wharg battle - Basically they said what would be the point of this skirmish (which is in the book) if the 'good guys' completely thrashed the Orcs? It also allowed them to have Viggo have the dream where they could work Aywen back into the story and keep her in the memory of the viewers. It worked on me because when Eowen asks Gimmli "Aragorn, Where is he?" and Gimli replies "He fell", I got a lump in my throat.

Shelob - Intercutting between the Battle of Helms Deep and Froda/Sam having their encounter with Shelob would cancel each other out and kill any of the drama because people's attentions would be divided. Also, Shelob does not occur at the same moment as the Battle of Helms deep.

I hope someone reads all this, because it's taken me awhile to write :)

Gary A

Byron

13-12-2003, 01:46

Originally posted by GAmbrose
If you listen to the commentary or watch the documentarys on the Extended DVD's, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens who adapted most of it defend themselves against people's complaints about not being faithful to the book, The Two Towers in particular.

Now, I admit I have not read the books and if you are not a fan of the movies then you are hardly likely to buy the DVD's and listen to the commentary, but their argues seem to make sense.

I'll summarise some of it:

Faramir - They've spent 4 1/2 hours showing that the Ring is one of the most powerful and evil things in Middle Earth and then along comes a character who is completely immune to it's power and never even thinks about using it - On film that would have completely undermined the Rings potency.
Completely agree with their reasoning, it wouldn't have made much sense. He's a much more rounded character with the addition of the single flashback in the EE as well.
The Elves (Elfs?) at Helms Deep - In the book it's just the people of Rohan, along with Aragorn that are defending from the Orc Army. There are mentions that the Elves are holding the lines to the north but it doesn't go into much detail other than to say Lothlorian is Burning and Rivendell is under attack. They spend about 30 minutes on the build up to the Helms Deep battle and make it seem as if there is very little hope that they can win. A small band of Elves turn up to rekindle the alliance of old and it gets a cheer in the cinema. The odds are still stacked against them, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Baffled how anyone could have a problem here. From what you say, it doesn't change the basic dynamic at all, and makes a great cinematic moment. (and could have made an equally good litiary moment as well I imagine, Bernard Cornwell pulled off a similar stunt with the Scots' guards in Sharpe's Triumph, and it worked like gangbusters!) Everyone in the audience when I saw it cheered as well; it's judged perfectly, just the right chink of hope to aleviate the dispair. Was reminded of Zulu where they decide to stand, and every seventh cavalry moment I've ever seen.
Aragorn going over the cliff after the Wharg battle - Basically they said what would be the point of this skirmish (which is in the book) if the 'good guys' completely thrashed the Orcs? It also allowed them to have Viggo have the dream where they could work Aywen back into the story and keep her in the memory of the viewers. It worked on me because when Eowen asks Gimmli "Aragorn, Where is he?" and Gimli replies "He fell", I got a lump in my throat.
Total cliche this, but actually worked for me in the cinema. Hey, you get the flashback, so that just about justifies it in my book.
Shelob - Intercutting between the Battle of Helms Deep and Froda/Sam having their encounter with Shelob would cancel each other out and kill any of the drama because people's attentions would be divided. Also, Shelob does not occur at the same moment as the Battle of Helms deep.

I hope someone reads all this, because it's taken me awhile to write :)

Gary A
Saw them explain that in the EE docco, and again, made perfect sense. Seemed a perfect case of people sticking rigidly to the text when faced with a completely different medium; if it shows up next film, which it does, what's it matter?

The Bear

13-12-2003, 02:29

Originally posted by GAmbrose
Aragorn going over the cliff after the Wharg battle - Basically they said what would be the point of this skirmish (which is in the book) if the 'good guys' completely thrashed the Orcs? It also allowed them to have Viggo have the dream where they could work Aywen back into the story and keep her in the memory of the viewers. It also gives them a way of getting the information about the 10,000 strong army of Uruk-Hai to Helm's Deep. Courtesy of Aragorn on his horse.

Whilst I agree with the Faramir explanation, Aragorn actually turned down the Ring in the films all on his own - when Frodo offers it to him and he closes Frodo's hand back around it.

So in theory they could've had Faramir refuse it which would've distinguished him from his brother, as does the flashback in the Extended Edition.

So I think it's a small cop-out, as they obviously wanted Aragorn to be seen as the stronger and nobler man, but forgiveable nonetheless.

Anyway, I loved the books and loved the films :D

Reno

13-12-2003, 09:50

I generally have problems with Lord of the Rings anyway. Tried to read the first book and truly hated it. Was not that impressed with the film of FOTR when I first saw it, but as I quite like Peter Jackson as a director gave it another try when the extended DVD came out and came to rather like it. Same happened with TTT, though I still didn't think they very the best thing since sliced bread.

Saw ROTK yesterday and was absolutely blown away by it. Still have little patience for the ponderous dialogue or any great emotional attatchement to the characters, but as a piece of action adventure cinema it is breathtaking, far surpassing the two previous films which feel like a warm up now. My only quibble is that the end is drawn out way beyond endurance to please the Tolkin nuts, but I think Geargte Lucas should be very afraid of releasing his last Star Wars film without inviting unflattering comporisons.

The Bear

13-12-2003, 11:24

Originally posted by Reno
My only quibble is that the end is drawn out way beyond endurance to please the Tolkin nuts I'd be grateful it isn't longer. He even left out the biggest of the end sections from the book.

Originally posted by Reno
but I think Geargte Lucas should be very afraid of releasing his last Star Wars film without inviting unflattering comporisons. Cue Guiness.....

:|

shenbop

13-12-2003, 11:39

Thanks for the answers everyone. Seems as though some people can just get lost in the whole experience and others find that harder to do. I will be going to see ROTK though as I felt that in many ways the other 2 films seemed to just be a big build up to the last part as they don't really have a conclusion, just leaving it open for the next film. So hopefully ROTK should be good, although I may wait and rent it on DVD because I don't know if I can sit in the same cinema seat for almost 4 hours (inc trailers etc before the film).

Corpsical

13-12-2003, 11:57

Whilst I agree with the Faramir explanation, Aragorn actually turned down the Ring in the films all on his own - when Frodo offers it to him and he closes Frodo's hand back around it.

I dont quite see this happening the same way as you, when Aragorn approaches Frodo the ring speaks to Aragorn and tries to tempt him, Aragorn realises this and so closes Frodos hand around the ring, but Aragorn knows that given time he would also fall to the ring (he speaks of that fear in Rivendell), so while I agree he is shown to deny the ring I think that the scene shows enough to suggest that eventually even Aragorn would crave the ring in the same way as Boramir.

As far as my opinion on the movies goes, I thought that Followship was a near perfect movie (esp the EE), I had some doubts over the Two Towers (but they were mostly addressed in the EE), but I have found that my love of these movies increases on every viewing as I spot yet more detail, and that I think is whats sets them apart from the usual blockbuster or average movie ... the DETAIL.

The subject matter and indeed the structure of the films will not be to everyones taste (as confirmed by some of the above comments) but for ME these films give me everything (well almost nearly everything) I've wanted in a fantasy movie, the subject is treated as if it were real and NOT done in a 'knowing wink to the audience' sort of way.

I am excited by the prospect of seeing Return of the King Wednesday and hope that it ends the trilogy well, but I'm even more excited that this may bring a new sensibility to the way fantasy movies are made and perceived in the future.

Corpsical

GAmbrose

13-12-2003, 12:22

Originally posted by Corpsical
I dont quite see this happening the same way as you, when Aragorn approaches Frodo the ring speaks to Aragorn and tries to tempt him, Aragorn realises this and so closes Frodos hand around the ring, but Aragorn knows that given time he would also fall to the ring (he speaks of that fear in Rivendell), so while I agree he is shown to deny the ring I think that the scene shows enough to suggest that eventually even Aragorn would crave the ring in the same way as Boramir.
Corpsical

Aragorn himself says he would have followed Frodo to the very fires of mount doom, but he's basically insinuating that he would have taken the ring there.

Gary A

Michael Mackenzie

13-12-2003, 12:34

Originally posted by Cornelius
The book is overated, the films are pure genius. Reverse "book" and "films" and you'll be close to the truth. :D

But I digress. I personally think that the films are quite good, in fact VERY good in a small number of sequences. But I fail to see why they have gained such a massive following. I feel that there are numerous flaws, including the casting choices for the hobbits (I'm willing to accept Sean Astin as Sam, but Elijah Wood makes a terrible Frodo), pacing issues (especially in The Fellowship of the Ring, and the relegation of Gimli to a comic relief role. Not to mention the fact that Peter Jackson has MBS (Michael Bay Syndrome) with a vengeance -- can the man not hold a shot for more than a few seconds?

There are also a number of moments that I find it difficult to take seriously, the prime offenders being Gandalf and Saruman's Matrix-style battle near the start of Fellowship, and the horrible CGI on Gandalf and the Balrog in the first scene of The Two Towers. That, and the woefully clichéd Aragorn/Arwen scenes (particularly in TTT) make me cringe.

Overall, I enjoy these films, and I'm looking forward to seeing The Return of the King, but to me they're hardly the greatest films of all time -- far from it.

snowball

13-12-2003, 12:36

Im not a fan of fantasy at all, but I read all three LOTR books last year (plus THe Hobbit), then saw the first two films (and bought the EE DVDs). Im not sure what it is I like about them - maybe its the pretty faithful adaptation of the book, maybe its the soundtrack, maybe its the 'epic-ness' to it all.

I'm not really sure...but I do like them .. :wave:

Guiness

13-12-2003, 12:45

Originally posted by The Bear
Cue Guiness.....

:|

Don't worry. Episode III will be powerful stuff.

andybhoy

13-12-2003, 13:02

Originally posted by James45
I can appreciate that people may not hold them in as high regard as others, but average is not a word that could used about these films by any sane person.

That is a rather fanboyish thing to say. Anyone who disagrees with you is insane?

I wanted to love the movies - they seemed to be everything I ever wanted out of the fantasy genre. I found FotR to be average at best - way too long. Some fantastic scenes surrounded by other scenes that left me wanting them to get oin with it.

have tried twice to watch TTT and haven't gotten past 70 minutes yet. It just doesn't do for me what it does for so many others. It doesn't grab me, or make me care about the characters at all. And I am a huge fan of the genre.

It's patently obvious that this movie trilogy will split movie goer opinion for a long time to come.

General Zod

13-12-2003, 13:10

As someone said over on the Digital Bits forum, Jackson started out being fairly faithful to the books with FOTR, but then decided to go for action, action and some more action in TTT and ROTK. The films come across as a tarted up, MTV style selection of Tolkien's Greatest Hits.

Jaime

13-12-2003, 13:14

I love the FOTR, but I'm not sure about TTT. I love it in the cinema, finding it slightly overlong, but by the time I got it on DVD I was a bit cold towards it. Most of its great, I just can't stand the pacing and I really wish there was more of Pippin and Merry and Gandalf. The Helm's Deep battle, while impressive, also got incredibly dull when it didn't focus on the three members of the fellowship in it. I'm not sure why exactly, but its just not as good as the first one. Each time I go to watch it I find it hard to justify devoting three hours to it, something I never have trouble doing with the first. I have the loan of the EE, but I can't bring myself to watch it yet. I'll hopefully fit it in before Wednesday.

ROTK will either make or break this trilogy.

GAmbrose

13-12-2003, 13:30

Originally posted by Whiggles
Reverse "book" and "films" and you'll be close to the truth. :D

can the man not hold a shot for more than a few seconds?

Longest sustained shot of a CGI character ever, 2 minutes towards the very end when Gollum and Smealgol talk of leading the Hobbits to Shelob, Numerous tracking shots such as the 'Moth' in FOTR where it follows the moth to the tower, Gandalf catches it, then the camera pans down to the forges of Isanguard.

Ok, so it's all helped by CGI, but they stand out in my mind.

Gary A

Tob

13-12-2003, 13:32

Not a fan of the books, l think the films are pretty impressive though.

SqueakyG

13-12-2003, 13:35

Originally posted by GAmbrose

Faramir - They've spent 4 1/2 hours showing that the Ring is one of the most powerful and evil things in Middle Earth and then along comes a character who is completely immune to it's power and never even thinks about using it - On film that would have completely undermined the Rings potency.
I can understand this argument, and in some ways I agree. I'm glad they explained their reasons on the DVD, because I didn't understand the change, but now this explanation suffices. The reason why fans of the book hate it so much is because Faramir's nobility is so admirable, and it's quite an insult to take away the greatness of his personality. I think clever scripting could have made the audience believe Faramir's nobility.

I also object to the movie taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath; a completely pointless diversion to pad out the Frodo/Sam strand of the plot. While they are at Osgiliath, the STUPIDEST thing ever happens: Frodo shows the Ring to the Wraith! The whole point of sending a couple of unknown hobbits into Mordor to destroy the Ring is that Sauron would never notice them! the whole plot hinges on Sauron not realising the Ring is so close to Mordor, or that the plan is to destroy it! The instant a Ringwraith sees Frodo holding it up, Sauron would know there is a Halfling standing there in Osgiliath with the Ring! I have no idea how much this will change the strategy of the war in the third movie.

The Elves (Elfs?) at Helms Deep - In the book it's just the people of Rohan, along with Aragorn that are defending from the Orc Army. There are mentions that the Elves are holding the lines to the north but it doesn't go into much detail other than to say Lothlorian is Burning and Rivendell is under attack.
This one I CANNOT agree with. The film was stupid for doing this. If you haven't read the book, you perhaps can't understand that the Elves are forsaking Middle-earth. They've been on Middle-earth for thousands of years, they are tired and bored and finally leaving it to Men, and they have an open-invitation to Valinor. They are not interested in having another alliance with Men -- they have lost all joy and interest in such things.

Walsh and Boyens explain having Elves at Helm's Deep by saying, "Elves were defending their own borders in the North anyway, so since they were fighting the Enemy anyway, it's not too much of a stretch to have them fighting at Helm's Deep." But it is too much of a stretch. There is a huge difference between having to defend your own borders, and marching 1000 miles to have a symbolic important alliance with Men!

Aragorn going over the cliff after the Wharg battle - Basically they said what would be the point of this skirmish(which is in the book) if the 'good guys' completely thrashed the Orcs?
But the warg attack isn't in the book, at least not as a "scene". The women and children of Edoras do not get taken to Helm's Deep, and there is no warg attack on the journey. The movie invented a warg attack, then invented a reason to make it "dramatic" -- Aragorn's supposed death. I think the warg attack scene was very cool, but I hate the extra half-hour of plot it created, especially since the film ends half an hour before the book.

TheoGB

13-12-2003, 13:37

Originally posted by GAmbrose
If you listen to the commentary or watch the documentarys on the Extended DVD's, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens who adapted most of it defend themselves against people's complaints about not being faithful to the book, The Two Towers in particular.

Now, I admit I have not read the books and if you are not a fan of the movies then you are hardly likely to buy the DVD's and listen to the commentary, but their argues seem to make sense.
Now you've made me remember I still have to listen to the commentary and watch the other stuff on the TTT EE!! :D

I'll summarise some of it:

Faramir - They've spent 4 1/2 hours showing that the Ring is one of the most powerful and evil things in Middle Earth and then along comes a character who is completely immune to it's power and never even thinks about using it - On film that would have completely undermined the Rings potency.

This is simply underestimating the audience. As has been pointed out Aragorn refuses to be drawn by it. Frodo himself obviously takes a long time to get affected. In the BBC adaptation it flows perfectly - you sense that he (Faramir) has to resist the temptation.

Obviously it has attraction, but the point is down EGO, something which is obvious to the audience: Boromir is egotistical and so he wants the ring to show his power. So obviously was Smeagol and so we saw was (I can't remember the name now) who took the ring off Sauron.

Faramir is NOT an egotist, as is obvious in his nature, and nor is Aragorn or Frodo, or even Sam. In fact Sam makes that excuse regarding Faramir utterly ridiculous as we never once see him remotely interested in the ring.

The Elves <strike>(Elfs?)</strike> :D at Helms Deep - In the book it's just the people of Rohan, along with Aragorn that are defending from the Orc Army. There are mentions that the Elves are holding the lines to the north but it doesn't go into much detail other than to say Lothlorian is Burning and Rivendell is under attack. They spend about 30 minutes on the build up to the Helms Deep battle and make it seem as if there is very little hope that they can win. A small band of Elves turn up to rekindle the alliance of old and it gets a cheer in the cinema. The odds are still stacked against them, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm in two minds here. I kind of don't like them because it serves to drag an already over-long battle out even longer.

Aragorn going over the cliff after the Wharg battle - Basically they said what would be the point of this skirmish (which is in the book) if the 'good guys' completely thrashed the Orcs? It also allowed them to have Viggo have the dream where they could work Aywen back into the story and keep her in the memory of the viewers. It worked on me because when Eowen asks Gimmli "Aragorn, Where is he?" and Gimli replies "He fell", I got a lump in my throat.
Yeah, except that sequence UTTERLY destroyed the movie's pacing and totally failed to actually achieve anything in furthering the movie's plot.

To have stuff involving the Ents cut in favour of this annoyed me. They should be honest and not say 'keep Arwen in the memory of the viewers' but 'fulfill their contractural obligations' in my view.

Shelob - Intercutting between the Battle of Helms Deep and Froda/Sam having their encounter with Shelob would cancel each other out and kill any of the drama because people's attentions would be divided. Also, Shelob does not occur at the same moment as the Battle of Helms deep.

Poppycock. Take a look at the final section of (for want of a better example) Return of the Jedi. This is precisely the sort of intercutting the cinema does best - three battles, one intimate, and two wide ranging, in very different terrain. Yet again, it's an underestimation of the audience. Cutting between sequences like this is as common as the hills and holds no problems for them.

I'm surprised because the reason they left Shelob out is surely so that they moment with the Mouth of Sauron at the black gate still has a sense of cliff-hanger about it - they need the climax of Shelob's scene to occur with this. :confused:

Tolkien got round it by his annoying habit of devoting an entire 'book' (each volume of LOTR is divided into two 'books' for those that haven't read it) to each half of the party only, hence for the first half of ROTK we know nothing about Sam and Frodo's situation. It would never work on screen though.

This is why I assumed they cut this section.

Steve1977

13-12-2003, 13:44

LOTR movies should really be compared to the original star wars films cause the prequels are nothing like the LOTR films.
You have politics etc. in TPM and AOTC but nothing like that in LOTR.
Prequels were a gift to the fans, giving them more star wars stuff to chew on.

GAmbrose

13-12-2003, 14:03

As a Star Wars fan since I can remember (Probably when I was about 5) I find the prequels very dull and nowhere near as good as the originals.

At this point I'm really not bothered about Episode III, because the other 2 are so average.

Gary A

ozric99

13-12-2003, 15:07

Originally posted by Steve1977
You have politics etc. in TPM and AOTC but nothing like that in LOTR.
Prequels were a gift to the fans... We obviously watched two different movies. Does Lucas still have the receipts? :nuts:

Guiness

13-12-2003, 16:20

He's absolutely right. The original SW trilogy shares the same crowd-pleasingly simple themes of good vs evil with LOTR. Lucas could have taken the easy route with more fairytale quest type stuff, but thankfully didn't cop out with a retread as many wanted him to. He gave us a much more subtle and complex trilogy that builds upon what he did in the first three, and a feast for true fans of Star Wars.

zantarous

13-12-2003, 16:26

The LOTR movies can be a bit difficult to get into. I saw the first one at the cinema and fell asleep. My girlfriend really liked and bought the dvd and I was forced to sit through it again and I still didn't like it.

When the TTT came out I was forced to go to the cinema to watch it with the g/f fell asleep halfway through. I thought that was an awesome movie.

When EE of the first film was being sold for £16.99 I bought a copy for the misuses and to put my new 36" Tosh through its paces and you know what, I suddenly thought this is was the best movie I had ever seen. This was the type of movie I had been crying out for, an old school type action, drama epic story full of myth.

As with regards to the Elves turning up at Helms Deep that surely has to be one of the most heart warming moments in cinema history.

Michael Mackenzie

13-12-2003, 16:36

I wouldn't describe the Lord of the Rings films as "difficult to get into". If anything, they are completely the opposite, since they are basically crowd-pleasers that don't require you to think to hard. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with movies like that, it just that I wouldn't have classed them as particularly difficult to enjoy or something you have to "get".

Byron

13-12-2003, 18:11

I guess it depends how readily you're able to suspend disbelief. I'm not into fantasy cinema or books at all, but if you can read all the old Arthurian legends and Confessions of an English Opium Eater without giving up in dispair, Lord of the Rings isn't going to be a problem.

Anyone else catch Newsnight Review the other night? Four very earnest arthouse types sitting round and discussing passionately whether the hobbits' character motivations were believable.

:D

Jimmyboy

13-12-2003, 19:22

Originally posted by James45
That's rich coming from someone with that flag in their sig Jimmyboy!:gag:

Coming to a cinema near you, the European Flag. :dork: :confused: ;)

neilalford

14-12-2003, 17:35

Originally posted by andybhoy

It's patently obvious that this movie trilogy will split movie goer opinion for a long time to come.

I wouldn't say that. As films go they've got about the most overwhelmingly positive response I can think of, with any film there will be people who dislike it but I wouldn't say LOTR has a massive split of opinion.

Michael Mackenzie

14-12-2003, 18:58

Originally posted by neilalford
I wouldn't say that. As films go they've got about the most overwhelmingly positive response I can think of, with any film there will be people who dislike it but I wouldn't say LOTR has a massive split of opinion. I agree. The debates about the films are quite fierce, but overall they have received almost unanimously high praise. Too high, in my opinion, but there you go, I'll just go off and sulk quietly.

James45

15-12-2003, 09:43

Originally posted by andybhoy
That is a rather fanboyish thing to say. Anyone who disagrees with you is insane?

Not at all on either.

Average is just that, run of the mill, nothing out of the ordinary. There are plenty of average movies out there but I can't accept that anyone could call the LOTR trilogy average.

If your used to seeing action sequences like the last charge of the Ents or Helm's Deep all the time, or watching a trilogy that maintains an extremely high standard throughout all the time or possesses such a rousing, driving action score as Howards Shore's all the time then I'd love to know where.

JAKE LO

15-12-2003, 09:56

I am sorry but i have to agree with James 45 on this one...the films are quite simply fantastic,and as far as i am concerned flawless...i have to confess i am a little bemused by the emotions bordering on hatred that seem to spout from the fingers of several members of this esteemed "movie fan" website, however i am not blind to the fact that it has left several friends and familiy of mine , cold. The simple fact is it either floats your boat or it doesnt, and judging by its commercial and critical sucess it seems to hit more than miss with a great many people...but you know what????...... ITS OK NOT TO LIKE LOTR........personally i think its your loss but you cant enforce your enjoyment on other people...to quote Pauline Calf" if you like something do it,if you dont like something ..try it, you might like it!!" but i tell you something these movies in my personal opinion will be even more highly regarded in fifty years time than star wars ..and i dont mind admitting as a trilogy it is the LORD !!:clap:

Michael Mackenzie

15-12-2003, 10:22

Originally posted by James45
If your used to seeing action sequences like the last charge of the Ents or Helm's Deep all the time,I'm afraid action sequences don't really do much for me. I'm more interested in characters.

or watching a trilogy that maintains an extremely high standard throughout all the timeSubjective.

or possesses such a rousing, driving action score as Howards Shore's all the time then I'd love to know where. The score is good, but I've heard plenty of films with better ones.

James45

15-12-2003, 10:52

Originally posted by Whiggles
I'm afraid action sequences don't really do much for me. I'm more interested in characters.

So action's not important in a fantasy trilogy?! Perhaps star wars would have been better without all the space dogfights and light sabre duels!:wave: :cuckoo: That's incredibly dismissive of you. The characters in the film are given plenty of development, far more so than the majority of action/fantasy films. I didn't think at any point during the first two films "What we need is more characeter development!"

Subjective.

Even Indiana Jones had the Temple of Doom! And many people knock Return of the Jedi (not me). The more I see The Two Towers the more I like it, it's not as good as Fellowship but it's still not a weak link.

The score is good, but I've heard plenty of films with better ones.

There may be better scores but there are far more, lesser scores. Again not average.

Mike

15-12-2003, 11:01

If your used to seeing action sequences like the last charge of the Ents or Helm's Deep all the time, or watching a trilogy that maintains an extremely high standard throughout all the time or possesses such a rousing, driving action score as Howards Shore's all the time then I'd love to know where.

The action scenes in "The Wild Bunch" and "Seven Samurai" far surpass anything in the LOTR trilogy. In fact, the battle scenes in "Ran" are much superior in emotional impact and visual flair and Kurosawa didn't have to resort to CGI

As for trilogies which are better, Ford's Cavalry Trilogy and Bergman's God's Silence Trilogy leave Jackson's films looking very average indeed. You can add to that list Leone's Dollars triogy, his mythic history trilogy and Bergman's Island trilogy.

Tom Whitaker

15-12-2003, 11:19

I'm not their biggest fan and I have to say I preferred the TTT theatrical cut to the FOTR one.

But just as watching the FOTR EE the night before seeing TTT improved that, you really should watch the TTT EE before seeing ROTK on Wednesday.

OK, there's lots of very dull stuff with Aragorn and Arwen (that's all so unnecessary - I WISH it wasn't there), there is a lot that will enhance your enjoyment of ROTK.

But the love story you'll care about after ROTK is NOT Arwen/Aragorn, it's Frodo :luv: Sam!

James45

15-12-2003, 11:32

Originally posted by Mike
Kurosawa didn't have to resort to CGI

Kurosawa didn't have to deal with walking trees though did he?! I'm trying to be fair here but that's a ridiculous argument.

The films you mention and use as examples are probably all in a lot of film critic's Top 100 lists the world over, fair enough (although I've never understood the fuss about Wild Bunch and couldn't stand Kurosawa's epic poetic mess aka Ran) but my initial argument was that the LOTR trilogy could never reasonably be described as average and your counter is that they're not as good as the greatest films ever made. I'm confused... what was your point?!

And why does your frame of reference have to spill over in high-art/worthy films... we're talking about blockbusters here, that's been pretty apparent from the start I though.

I stand by my original argument, the trilogy is far, far better than average.

JohnMid1098

15-12-2003, 11:33

Ok, why don't we give Krull a try?

James45

15-12-2003, 11:37

Originally posted by Tom Whitaker
But the love story you'll care about after ROTK is NOT Arwen/Aragorn, it's Frodo :luv: Sam!

Tolkien's Sam/Frodo scenes in Return of the Kings were a bit well... ghey, I put this down to the childlike innocence of the times. Or maybe not, I think there's definitely something going on there.:lol:

Mike

15-12-2003, 11:48

And why does your frame of reference have to spill over in high-art/worthy films... we're talking about blockbusters here, that's been pretty apparent from the start I though

In what sense are Ford's Cavalry Trilogy and Leone's Dollars Trilogy only high art or worthy ? Both were made as commercial films by popular filmmakers. In fact, "Seven Samurai" was also made as a commercial film and Kurosawa has always been regarded in his own country as a popular filmmaker rather than an artist per se.

In any case, if the LOTR films are as good as you and other people on this thread claim, then why should they not be compared with the very finest examples of filmmaking ? You wrote "watching a trilogy that maintains an extremely high standard throughout all the time". You didn't add any conditionals about what kind of trilogies we were meant to compare them to.

TheoGB

15-12-2003, 11:52

I'd have to agree with James45 on the 'average' tag. They're overrated but to describe them as average is a little dubious.

There's a difference (say) between 'not to my taste' and 'average'. In fact 'average' is pretty much the worst thing you could say about a piece of art - it suggests you couldn't care less, that it's not even bad enough to object to.

JAKE LO

15-12-2003, 12:11

Sorry but this thread is going absolutley no where!!!
Mike doesnt like LOTR so what ..who cares !!?? noones making you watch it and frankly millions and millions of people do like it,
I think the problem with people like Zardoz and Mike is they are sooo objective and serious about movies that some times they forget just to sit back and enjoy them...art is all about emotional responses....how a piece of art makes YOU react....stop trying to pull it all apart...i think critique should centre more around interpretion than a destructive dissection!!

General Zod

15-12-2003, 12:41

Originally posted by James45
Not at all on either.

Average is just that, run of the mill, nothing out of the ordinary. There are plenty of average movies out there but I can't accept that anyone could call the LOTR trilogy average.

If your used to seeing action sequences like the last charge of the Ents or Helm's Deep all the time, or watching a trilogy that maintains an extremely high standard throughout all the time or possesses such a rousing, driving action score as Howards Shore's all the time then I'd love to know where.

LOTR is done well on a technical level, but I'd still personally call it an average movie, although many people feel differently. I tried watching it last night with the commentary to see if it made a difference, but it still left me cold.
There's lots of flaws in it that just irritate me, there's nothing in it, with the possible exception of Gandalf's fall, to connects with me emotionally, and even highlight scenes like Gandalf v the Balrog aren't enough to keep my attention from wandering.

Mike

15-12-2003, 12:46

Originally posted by JAKE LO
Sorry but this thread is going absolutley no where!!!
Mike doesnt like LOTR so what ..who cares !!?? noones making you watch it and frankly millions and millions of people do like it,
I think the problem with people like Zardoz and Mike is they are sooo objective and serious about movies that some times they forget just to sit back and enjoy them...art is all about emotional responses....how a piece of art makes YOU react....stop trying to pull it all apart...i think critique should centre more around interpretion than a destructive dissection!!

I thought the purpose of this thread was about one's reaction to LOTR and the intelligent discussion of one's own viewpoint. If you're going to start criticising people for stating their own point of view and responding to that of other people then why on earth are you reading the forums in the first place? James45 has made some interesting and worthwhile points and I have responded to them.

As you've quoted someone who was presumably highly influentiial to you, let me do the same. Regarding the nature of art, Robert Hughes says: "The purpose of art is to bridge the gulf between you and all this is not you and thus pass from feeling to meaning". Art goes beyond emotion - the emotional response is the first response but it's not the be-all and end-all.

Simply because millions and millions of people like something does not a priori make it good. Indeed, it makes it all the more worthy of serious discussion.

Sitting back and enjoying something doesn't necessarily mean switching off one's critical faculties and if something isn't meaningful or entertaining to the individual - I certainly don't find these films entertaining - then my reaction is bound to be that I didn't enjoy it. If you think I can't enjoy a film for what it is then I suggest you read my review of "Blood Feast 2". It's a dreadful film in virtually every way but it is very entertaining - rather more so than "The Two Towers" as far as I'm concerned.

sweevo

15-12-2003, 12:58

Just to add my two penneth...... ;)

I thought the theatrical releases of the first two films were good but not that special. I did however buy the Extended Editions of both of these films and must say that they are just fantastic!!! :nuts:

The first disk of TTT:EE in particular makes a MASSIVE improvement on the shorter theatrical release.

Obviously, things are going to change with the transition from book (I've read the first two) to screen but I think on the whole they got most of the changes right, in so far as the "cinematic" experience goes.

My few gripes so far have been:
=======================
Arwen & Eowyn's parts being built up just to satisfy the romantics. :suspect:

The Warg battle when Aragorn goes for a bath.

After watching the EE's, I do feel that the screen time afforded to the those two bits of poetic license could have been better used in the theatrical releases.

I'm a big Star Wars fan and honestly feel that the LOTR trilogy will equal the original Star Wars trilogy in my affections. :thumbs:

Lucas has certainly got his work cut out for EPIII.

General Zod

15-12-2003, 13:08

Originally posted by TheoGB
There's a difference (say) between 'not to my taste' and 'average'. In fact 'average' is pretty much the worst thing you could say about a piece of art - it suggests you couldn't care less, that it's not even bad enough to object to.

I wouldn't say LOTR is bad, but in all other respects, you're spot on. It simply isn't emotional or involving at all to me.

sweevo

15-12-2003, 14:11

Each to his own perhaps? :suspect:

camelopardis

15-12-2003, 15:07

Originally posted by James45
Tolkien's Sam/Frodo scenes in Return of the Kings were a bit well... ghey, I put this down to the childlike innocence of the times. Or maybe not, I think there's definitely something going on there.:lol:

Never heard of platonic heroic love? Try reading Homer (no - NOT the Simpsons!)

James45

15-12-2003, 15:13

hmmm don't think putting your head in your best friend's lap, getting a kiss on the forehead and a stroke on the hand while they say how much they love you has ever been acceptable in bloke circles to be honest.:D

Guiness

15-12-2003, 15:22

Originally posted by JohnMid1098
Ok, why don't we give Krull a try?

And talk about Hawk The Slayer later?

Nick Laslett

15-12-2003, 17:41

I'm a huge fan of Peter Jackson's LOTR films.

They reign supreme at the top of the fantasy film heap.

In fifty years time they will be considered cornerstones of cinema history. The films will be in top ten polls alongside The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Singin In The Rain. What Tolkien achieved is remarkable, book of the Century, Britain's favourite read. Jackson's adaptation will be considered one of the most remarkable translations from page to screen in film history.

The LOTR haters amongst you may find this abhorrent, but this is the fate that awaits these films and will be written into history.

Like Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz and The Godfather the film adaptations and original novels will co-exist much loved and cherished by the general population at large. Being too young to experience any of the aforementioned I am pleased to be able to fully enjoy the LOTR phenomenon as it unfolds today.

Unlike Star Wars, which I saw at the cinema in '77, and now look back on as a very simplistic children’s film, I know such a reversal in opinion will not happen with LOTR.

You've got to admit defeat, maybe not now but in fifty years time you will be a lonely voice. I'm sure there were people who thought Mervyn Le Roy's adaptation of L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz was a travesty, with the added songs, dull dialogue and changed in characters. But you will not hear from those voices of dissent now. I imagine the same is true of the Godfather and there were those in '72 who thought this much loved book had been bowdlerised for the screen, with their favourite sequences now missing. No one mentions that now.

This is the fate that awaits these great films, they will not diminish and they will not fade. They will be in top ten polls until you are sick of them!

You know, I might sound pretty passion about these films, but they are not even my favourites. For the record here they are:

Once Upon A Time In The West
Life & Death of Colonel Blimp
The Right Stuff
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
The Man Who Would Be King (Similar titles or what?)

Mike

15-12-2003, 17:54

I'm sure there were people who thought Mervyn Le Roy's adaptation of L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz was a travesty, with the added songs, dull dialogue and changed in characters. But you will not hear from those voices of dissent now. 

People may well have considered Mervyn Le Roy's version of "Wizard of Oz" a travesty, but we'll never know because he had nothing to do with it. The film was directed by Victor Fleming with uncredited assistance from Richard Thorpe and King Vidor.

I would be interested to know why people are confidently using their psychic powers to predict what will be a classic in 50 years time. If I'm around in 50 years time, which is unlikely, and I'm proved wrong then I'll be happy to admit it. For now, I'll judge them on the basis of what I've seen and as far as I'm concerned, they are seriously lacking. How do you know that "such a reversal will not happen" ? Isn't that taking foresight a little too far ? Personally, I don't know how I will feel about any film in 25 years time and I don't think anyone else knows for sure either.

I'm not a hater of the films incidentally. I just think they're mediocre and that they are vastly overrated.

Michael Mackenzie

15-12-2003, 18:55

Originally posted by Nick Laslett
Nick, can I ask you how it is that you know all this? How is it that you have been able to see into the future? :D How do we know that the Lord of the Rings films are not just a fad that will have been forgotten within a decade?

General Zod

15-12-2003, 19:09

Originally posted by Nick Laslett
I'm a huge fan of Peter Jackson's LOTR films.

They reign supreme at the top of the fantasy film heap.

In fifty years time they will be considered cornerstones of cinema history. The films will be in top ten polls alongside The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Singin In The Rain.

Ok, I'll bite. Apart from some baffling (to me) popular interest in these films, how exactly do they match up to the Godfather, Citizen Kane, or even the Star Wars OT? I'd like to hear how they push cinematic ingenuity or FX wizardry as CK and the OT did, or are simply undisputed classics like the Godfather?

GAmbrose

15-12-2003, 19:11

Originally posted by General Zod
I'd like to hear how they push cinematic ingenuity or FX wizardry as CK and the OT did, or are simply undisputed classics like the Godfather?

How about a certain character called Gollum, whom I readily accepted as a real character rather than a dodgy CGI Jar Jar binks type thing.

Gary A

General Zod

15-12-2003, 19:18

Originally posted by GAmbrose
How about a certain character called Gollum, whom I readily accepted as a real character rather than a dodgy CGI Jar Jar binks type thing.

Gary A

Easy. Put aside your (admittedly justified) dislike for the actual character, and you'll see that, on a technical level, Gollum isn't any better done than Jar Jar.

mjb1975

15-12-2003, 19:38

Absolutely - I'm currently working through the EE of TTT and this is the first time I've seen it since at the flicks. Gollum is, of course, very well done and they should be proud of their effects here, but it's still a CGI character and certainly looks it.

I just can't ignore the CGI-ness of the character, no matter how advanced it might be.

TheoGB

15-12-2003, 19:43

Originally posted by General Zod
Ok, I'll bite. Apart from some baffling (to me) popular interest in these films, how exactly do they match up to the Godfather, Citizen Kane, or even the Star Wars OT? I'd like to hear how they push cinematic ingenuity or FX wizardry as CK and the OT did, or are simply undisputed classics like the Godfather?

:wave: From a disputer RE: Godfather. Or I guess what I mean, is that they're as overrated as LOTR and Citizen Kane.

The Godfather movies are an overlong way to tell a very simple story in my opinion.

I enjoyed watching them, but I also thought none were in the same league as (for example) Apocalypse Now...

Foxy Slamdangle

15-12-2003, 20:00

Originally posted by TheoGB
The Godfather movies are an overlong way to tell a very simple story in my opinion.

I'm not a great fan of Puzo's novels, but I wouldn't exactly say the Godfather movies are simplistic (particularly part II) - not to the extent of 6 books and some self-important appendices about a hobbit trying to sling a ring into a volcano.

Citizen Kane is always the top of movie lists because of the influence it has had on movies since its release. I can't forsee any film matching it in the near future.

Tim Fleming

15-12-2003, 20:11

Originally posted by Guiness
Don't worry. Episode III will be powerful stuff.

Don't you mean "powerful fluff"? ;)

Tim Fleming

15-12-2003, 20:13

Originally posted by Guiness
He's absolutely right. The original SW trilogy shares the same crowd-pleasingly simple themes of good vs evil with LOTR. Lucas could have taken the easy route with more fairytale quest type stuff, but thankfully didn't cop out with a retread as many wanted him to. He gave us a much more subtle and complex trilogy that builds upon what he did in the first three, and a feast for true fans of Star Wars.

He gave us Jar Jar Binks for god sake!!! :gag:

Guiness

15-12-2003, 20:15

The films aren't about Jar Jar. He plays a part, and an appropriate one. You have missed the point of these films.

Tim Fleming

15-12-2003, 20:17

Originally posted by James45
Kurosawa didn't have to deal with walking trees though did he?! I'm trying to be fair here but that's a ridiculous argument.

Actually, yes he did... in Throne of Blood (his take on MacBeth) Kurosawa does have an entire forest move :)

Guiness

15-12-2003, 20:25

Originally posted by Nick Laslett
In fifty years time they will be considered cornerstones of cinema history. The films will be in top ten polls alongside The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Singin In The Rain.

No they will not. They will be recognised as being no more pioneering than Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, Willow, The Neverending story or Masters Of The Universe. They have good effects, but not much more. Jackson is no auteur by any stretch of imagination.

Cornelius

15-12-2003, 21:06

Originally posted by Guiness
No they will not. They will be recognised as being no more pioneering than Labyrinth, The Dark Crystal, Willow, The Neverending story or Masters Of The Universe. They have good effects, but not much more. Jackson is no auteur by any stretch of imagination.
I hope you're being sarcastic. Films like The Labyrinth, Masters of the Universe weren't concieved on the same scale as LOTR. Masters of the Universe, if I remember correctly, was set mostly around a couple of blocks of some small American Town. Trying to compare LOTR to any of the films listed above is like comparing Star Wars to an episode of Dr Who.

Originally posted by Guiness
They have good effects, but not much more. Jackson is no auteur by any stretch of imagination. I agree but films like The Godfather, Seven Samurai Citizen Kane etc come from a different era where the film maker was at the top of the pile. There are very few, if any auteurs left in the hollywood film making industry because films are a huge investment on the part of studios and they daren't let a single person have any appreciable control over the film making process. It's remarkable that Peter Jackson has managed to exercise such control over what has been one of the biggest film making ventures in recent years. He doesn't seemed to have given in to pressure from the people who have bank rolled the film. He's managed to make a trilogy, an adaptation of the book that's true to the spirit of it, if not the letter.

TheoGB

15-12-2003, 21:06

Originally posted by Foxy Slamdangle
I'm not a great fan of Puzo's novels, but I wouldn't exactly say the Godfather movies are simplistic (particularly part II) - not to the extent of 6 books and some self-important appendices about a hobbit trying to sling a ring into a volcano.

Citizen Kane is always the top of movie lists because of the influence it has had on movies since its release. I can't forsee any film matching it in the near future.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to defend LOTR as having any more complex a plot, much as I enjoy them. But that's precisely my point about The Godfather.

I guess Part II is more complex, but then it has the two timeline point about it. However, it's the themes of the movies that are really very basic. The characters are all vicious and basically lack humanity, so you watch 3+ hours of people you don't really care about killing each other in ever escalating revenge.

And like it or loathe it, Star Wars has had just as much influence on movies since its creation as Citizen Kane, in my opinion. Though whether these are positive things is another matter.

Foxy Slamdangle

15-12-2003, 21:22

Originally posted by TheoGB
And like it or loathe it, Star Wars has had just as much influence on movies since its creation as Citizen Kane, in my opinion. Though whether these are positive things is another matter.

Sorry, can't see it myself. I can't reel off too many films that I have seen that have apparently been influenced by Star Wars - although you could argue that it started off film merchandising in a big way. I don't recall Mattel making any Charles Foster Kane action figures.

Anyway, shouldn't the influence be from "The Hidden Fortress", not Star Wars?

ozric99

15-12-2003, 22:14

Originally posted by Guiness
The films aren't about Jar Jar. He plays a part, and an appropriate one. You have missed the point of these films. Which point was that? To sell toys to children?

Guiness

15-12-2003, 23:53

Originally posted by Cornelius
Films like The Labyrinth, Masters of the Universe weren't concieved on the same scale as LOTR. Masters of the Universe, if I remember correctly, was set mostly around a couple of blocks of some small American Town. Trying to compare LOTR to any of the films listed above is like comparing Star Wars to an episode of Dr Who.

So a film is an important piece of cinema simply because it is big and expensive?

Originally posted by ozric99
Which point was that? To sell toys to children?

Obviously not, because that didn't happen.

TheoGB

16-12-2003, 06:41

Originally posted by Foxy Slamdangle
Sorry, can't see it myself. I can't reel off too many films that I have seen that have apparently been influenced by Star Wars - although you could argue that it started off film merchandising in a big way. I don't recall Mattel making any Charles Foster Kane action figures.

Anyway, shouldn't the influence be from "The Hidden Fortress", not Star Wars?

I think the point is that The Hidden Fortress is not a well-known film.

Star Wars influenced films in the way I assumed you meant CK did: stylistically and cinematically.

Before SW space ships did not move like that - they moved slowly and gracefully like 2001. And while Alien can claim a whole 'no spacesuits' thing for Sci-Fi, SW introduced the concepts of 'Space Opera' and also included a lot of very dirty and cranky spacecraft ideas.

You could go on to blame Star Wars (remember I didn't say it was all positive) for the modern brainless blockbuster, and you'd probably be right. The thing is SW is a much better movie than many of its impersonators, but they were certainly able to get the essential elements of big scale, big explosions, loud rumbling noises, operatic musical scores, etc.

Most critics I've ever read talk about an 'after Star Wars' effect in the studios - that it changed the way movies were made, and yes, marketed.

Star Wars is a seminal movie - no question.

neilalford

16-12-2003, 08:42

Originally posted by Guiness
The films aren't about Jar Jar. He plays a part, and an appropriate one. You have missed the point of these films.

I think a lot of people miss the point of them, but to be honest, what I would consider the main narrative of the prequels is pushed very much into the background in favour of a much more kid-friendly plot. I watched TPM and saw quite an interesting political thriller struggling to get out but most casual viewers would have missed that completely, even after AOTC I think a lot of people don't realise that Palpatine and Sidious are the same person and if you don't know that, the films just look like a series of action scenes. I certainly don't hate the SW prequels but I do think they could have been much better.

Getting back on topic, I do very much think that the LOTR films have been an amazing achievment, simply in the scale of them, close to ten hours purely for the cinematic versions, the scope of the battles and scenery is also amazing and they were also done comparativly cheaply, I believe about $200 Million for all three films which is not an awful lot in film-making terms. But as well as the huge scope there has been amazing attention to detail in every area, to make sure the whole film feels consistent.

They may not be perfect, but I don't think any film is, FOTR comes about as close as any film could IMO, I have some problems with TTT but high hopes for ROTK. Obviously they won't be as influential on cinema as Citizen Kane or the original Star Wars films but I certainly think they've raised the bar on what can be done cinematically and I do think they will be remembered in years to come.

No film has got me more involved and excited at the cinema than FOTR, not even the films I saw as a child (which includes 2/3 of the Star Wars trilogy).

As for Gollum, I do think he is a milestone as the first truly believable CG character, other than a couple of shots, the only way I could tell he wasn't a real character was simply that he couldn't possibly be! When I lent the film to my parents they asked me how they'd done Gollum, my mum couldn't work out how they'd managed to make someone look that different using make-up.

Johnny Vodka

16-12-2003, 09:05

Originally posted by TheoGB

Star Wars is a seminal movie - no question.

It's still rubbish, though. Unless you're five. ;)

Dan Druff

16-12-2003, 10:02

I don't really know why people have to justify liking these movies, or any movie..not everyone shares the same taste..I think too many people rush to defend their favourite films, which is a lost cause against those who disagree anyway.
Personally I think they are fabulous movies but my fiancée hates them..different strokes..:norty:

TheoGB

16-12-2003, 10:13

Originally posted by Johnny Vodka
It's still rubbish, though. Unless you're five. ;)

Name a film that isn't rubbish!! ;)

People should be reading books, not watching films!! :razz:

LooneyJetman

16-12-2003, 14:09

Originally posted by neilalford
I watched TPM and saw quite an interesting political thriller struggling to get out but most casual viewers would have missed that completely, even after AOTC I think a lot of people don't realise that Palpatine and Sidious are the same person and if you don't know that, the films just look like a series of action scenes.

Then more people will be surprised by Episode 3 then, won't they. Perhaps George Lucas is planning on surprising the majority of viewers.

I honestly wonder whether the majority of casual viewers know Anakin's fate...

I don't know why every LOTR thread has to turn into Star Wars bashing. I think the two series are worlds apart.

neilalford

16-12-2003, 14:30

Originally posted by andrew_lee

I don't know why every LOTR thread has to turn into Star Wars bashing. I think the two series are worlds apart.

That would be Guinness, he feels the need to bring Star Wars up on every LOTR thread. It's like squirtle and the PS2;)

bollecks

16-12-2003, 17:11

LOTR 1 joined Strange Days as the second movie I ever walked out of. 3 hours of walk a bit fight a bit, walk a bit fight a bit.

Dreadful...

Guiness

16-12-2003, 17:20

In the two threads in which i bash Jackson's crappy movies, on both occasions SW has been brought up by someone else.

Strange Days was excellent!

Cornelius

16-12-2003, 17:28

Originally posted by Guiness
So a film is an important piece of cinema simply because it is big and expensive?
No, Not what I said. Let me spell it out for you:

Your choice of films in comparison with LOTR is ridiculous.

Guiness

16-12-2003, 18:51

Originally posted by Cornelius
No, Not what I said.

Yes, it is. I was arguing the claim that LOTR is no more groundbreaking than the other fantasy films i mentioned, your counter-argument to which was that they have bigger production values.

TinTin

17-12-2003, 12:24

Originally posted by Guiness
Yes, it is. I was arguing the claim that LOTR is no more groundbreaking than the other fantasy films i mentioned, your counter-argument to which was that they have bigger production values. Cornelius doesn't 'counter argue' he tends to go off at a tangent. :D

Oh and people who think Peter Jackson has produced an average film are wrong.

Nick Laslett

17-12-2003, 14:07

Originally posted by Mike
I'm sure there were people who thought Mervyn Le Roy's adaptation of L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz was a travesty, with the added songs, dull dialogue and changed in characters. But you will not hear from those voices of dissent now. 

People may well have considered Mervyn Le Roy's version of "Wizard of Oz" a travesty, but we'll never know because he had nothing to do with it. The film was directed by Victor Fleming with uncredited assistance from Richard Thorpe and King Vidor.

C'mon guys, this is meant to be a movie literate site!

Mike, I thought you were a pretty cine-literate guy with your references to non-Hollywood movies, but this comment is way beneath you.

I can’t believe no-one else has corrected you on the above statement yet?

Now listen class, before the French critics invented the “Auteur” theory in the 50’s the main individual responsible for how a film turned out during the Studio system was the PRODUCER. (There are exceptions to this rule, like Orson Welles, John Huston, but by and large the Director was beholden to the wishes of the Producer.)

Wizard of Oz had three different directors and over a dozen writers, there is no way you could contribute the movie to anyone else other than Mervyn LeRoy and Arthur Freed. They decided on the film’s look, the cast, which sequences to cut-out, etc. In fact they had complete control over the whole production.

Victor Fleming is also credited with directing Gone With The Wind, but as with Wizard of Oz, the Producer of this movie should be the one who receives the “auteur” credit, David O’Selznick.

I’m still in shock to the fact that someone could make the statement that Mervyn LeRoy had nothing to do with the Wizard of Oz. (Mike, back to film class for you!)