(OT) Lord of the Rings Trilogy

[CosmicBills]

As for the films, someone said they were not emotional. I must have been watching a different movie. Am I wrong or is the entire Trilogy based on the emotions of good versus the will of evil?

 

219169[/snapback]

 

I didn't say the film lacked emotion, but rather the films' achievments were visual (and technical) rather than emotional. If great films were determined soley by visual (and technical) impacts, then the Star Wars I and II (the prequils) would be listed near the top of anyone's list. Thankfully they aren't. That's because great films are determined more by their emotional power than their look (although look and visual style certainly can play on one's emotions). While Tolkin's LOTR packs a lot of emotion into it's three volumes, the films fall way short. But anytime you try to cram 3 massive books into a 380 page script, a lot will be lost.

 

Jackson stuck faithfully to Tolkin (much like Columbus did with Harry Potter 1&2) but that task is virtually impossible to pull off. Granted, Jackson did a stellar job, yet the film doesn't truly connect on an emotional level with a number of important characters because the narrative isn't focused.

 

There are two choices when you adapt someone else's work. Either you do it faithfully (word for word almost) or you take the major themes and work within those. Going back to the Harry Potter example, Columbus took Jackson's route while Cuaron (who directed Harry Potter 3) lopped off much of the book and focused on the main theme of the transition from childhood to adolesence. In the end, Cuaron's work was far superior to Columbus's first two films because the narrative was focused which created a far more powerful emotional punch.

 

Don't get me wrong now, I am not in any way trying to compair Harry Potter to LOTR. LOTR is far superior to HP. Yet the films are far from perfect because Jackson took the route of Columbus rather than Cuaron. But he did it out of love for the source material and millions love the result. I do too, just not enough to consider it a top 25 movie let alone the greatest thing ever put on celluloid. You know what I'm saying?

[stuckincincy]

I finally got around to renting the last one a month ago. It was good, but they dragged out the ending *forever*, to the point where my wife and me felt that Frodo should get pushed into the lava.

[stevestojan]

wow, and I thought I needed to get laid..

 

These movies are going to breed the new version of "star wars geeks" and "trekies".

 

I watched the first one, well most of it. I almost made it to the end, and honestly was so bored, that I didn't ever care how it ended.

 

Give me a good drama over this "middle earth" crap any day...

[MDH]

You don't need an extensive background in ANYTHING to think what YOU consider to be a great piece of ANYTHING. It is a serious pet peeve of mine that people on their lofty academic mountain can tell the world what is great and what is not!! I find it offensive, really... nobody writes books or creates films or paints paintings for critics; they do it because people ENJOY them!!! I'll take my Dumas or Monet and let the abstract artists and the lovers of Thomas Hardy and Emily Bronte have their enjoyment.

 

219104[/snapback]

 

I would never tell anybody what is great and what isn't. You'll never hear me claiming, "such and such is the greatest film ever." No matter how much I know about the subject, I'll never feel I know enough to make such an arrogant statement. I'm not speaking about the greatness of LOTR, I'm speaking purely of the ability of people to make a valid argument. In the end everything is subjective, you are correct. However, if you have no knowledge of a subject in question your opinion means holds no weight. Its the equivalent of somebody not following politics and saying they think Bush is the worst president that ever and knowing very little about previous presidents and their policies. Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, but without some sort of foundation of knowledge that opinion isn't worth much.

 

As for Visconte's "supposed" great works, this speaks precisely to what I was talking about earlier. If someone watches mostly Hollywood films and gets accustomed to a very specific type of filmmaking and then is thrown something like Visconte, of course they're not going to like it. That being said, there are plenty of people with backgrounds in film that also dislike Visconte’s films. The liking or disliking of his films isn't what's important, it’s the ability to make a coherent and intelligent argument about the films...and not just in a literary sense (which is how just about all people, and critics, judge films...because that's the background they have, literature).

 

As I said before, at its foundation my problem is one of semantics. There is a big difference between saying “favorite” and “greatest”…one had better know what they’re speaking about if they start throwing around the latter because it’s the type of statement that can, and should, be challenged. The ironic thing is that the more one knows about a subject, the less likely they are to throw around those types of statements because they understand how little they really know.

 

I also find it humorous that you have such a distain for the academic community. It’s a pure defense mechanism; you must feel this way to justify your position. Think of it a different way. What if I started throwing around statements about somebody else’s area of expertise, say, Bio Chemistry? Would my opinions on the subject (something I know zero about) be just as valid as a Bio Chemists? I mean, all that academic stuff is pure hogwash!

[stuckincincy]

wow, and I thought I needed to get laid..

 

These movies are going to breed the new version of "star wars geeks" and "trekies".

 

I watched the first one, well most of it. I almost made it to the end, and honestly was so bored, that I didn't ever care how it ended.

 

Give me a good drama over this "middle earth" crap any day...

219222[/snapback]

 

You might like "Galaxy Quest", a send-up of Star Trek - very funny - starred Tim Allen, Alan Rickman, and a very buxom Sigourney Weaver.

[The Poojer]

I have tried many times over the course of my 41 years to read the books of the series by tolkien, but never really got into it, i am not a fantasy type afficianado. That being said, the 3 movies blew me away completely. I absolutely love them and would consider them among the best movies I have ever seen. some day i am gonna read the entire literary work, but until then i will watch the movie trilogy over and over

 

Well, I just watched the LOTR Trilogy over the past three days. There is much I forgot going a year in between each masterpiece. To call LOTR the greatest movie of all time does it no justice. I don't think you can ever consider it a movie. It transends that level into one that has never been reached. It is an epic that I don't think will ever be bettered. Peter Jackson did a tremendous job turn what I consider the greatest piece of literature into a film.

 

For those of you who never saw the epic or those who thought, ewww, that looks corny, give it a chance, you won't regret it. It will be the greatest thing you'll ever watch -- at least until the Bills win a Super Bowl.

 

The characters, the music, the battles, the struggles of good and evil, and so much more. I get shivers watching this movie, you feel as though you are in it.

218703[/snapback]

[alg]

I read The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy 3-4 times in my 20s. I even owned, read and studied the history and language of the Elves in that time, though I cannot remember the name of the book. Over the last 4 years my wife and I have purchased the extended version of the previous year's movie and watched it, and all previous versions dutifly.

 

In all my life I have never seen a movie live up to the promise of a work of fine literature. Movie makers have ruined everything from Dickens to Tolstoy. Until now. Jackson created a masterpiece - and one I never thought I would see done in my lifetime. I was almost as depressed when it was concluded as I was when finishing the books - out of the sarrow of saying "goodbye." While this work is truly wonderful, it should be remembered that to "do justice" is not to actually exceed the original (written) work. Tolkien's world of wonder may not be outdone in a thousand years.

 

The movies are also not without their issues, many pointed out here. To me, however, the greatest blunder is the one of ommision: Jackson should have made The Hobbit first. Just as it should be read first by anyone contemplating the undertaking.

 

We all have our unique likes and dislikes, but to those individuals who found the books or movies "boring" I say WTF? To each their own....

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I would never tell anybody what is great and what isn't.  You'll never hear me claiming, "such and such is the greatest film ever."  No matter how much I know about the subject, I'll never feel I know enough to make such an arrogant statement.  I'm not speaking about the greatness of LOTR, I'm speaking purely of the ability of people to make a valid argument.  In the end everything is subjective, you are correct.  However, if you have no knowledge of a subject in question your opinion means holds no weight.  Its the equivalent of somebody not following politics and saying they think Bush is the worst president that ever and knowing very little about previous presidents and their policies.  Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, but without some sort of foundation of knowledge that opinion isn't worth much.

 

As for Visconte's "supposed" great works, this speaks precisely to what I was talking about earlier.  If someone watches mostly Hollywood films and gets accustomed to a very specific type of filmmaking and then is thrown something like Visconte, of course they're not going to like it.  That being said, there are plenty of people with backgrounds in film that also dislike Visconte’s films.  The liking or disliking of his films isn't what's important, it’s the ability to make a coherent and intelligent argument about the films...and not just in a literary sense (which is how just about all people, and critics, judge films...because that's the background they have, literature).

 

As I said before, at its foundation my problem is one of semantics.  There is a big difference between saying “favorite” and “greatest”…one had better know what they’re speaking about if they start throwing around the latter because it’s the type of statement that can, and should, be challenged.  The ironic thing is that the more one knows about a subject, the less likely they are to throw around those types of statements because they understand how little they really know.

 

I also find it humorous that you have such a distain for the academic community.  It’s a pure defense mechanism; you must feel this way to justify your position.  Think of it a different way.  What if I started throwing around statements about somebody else’s area of expertise, say, Bio Chemistry?  Would my opinions on the subject (something I know zero about) be just as valid as a Bio Chemists?  I mean, all that academic stuff is pure hogwash!

219225[/snapback]

 

Well, Roger Ebert must not know very much, because he regularly contributes to 'greatest films of all time' lists... It is human nature to want to rank things, and I don't find it objectionable! We will disagree regardless, no matter what background we may have. These are not commandments, set in stone, making the greatest films of all time mandatory rules of law!

 

I have NO ultimate disdain for it... I merely point out that it is sometimes the practice of academic lifers to tell us what is the best, and what is second best, just because that is their opinion.

 

I AM a part of the academic community despite my service, keeping abreast of the latest in my field. My problems are with the strict ones who are never open to changes in thinking or new possibilities or differences in opinion. Often times it is these people, in a position of authority, that ultimately RESTRICT creativity and knowledge. Many famous people have been subject to this kind of rigidity.

[Zona]

Bottom line people is this. "Best Ever" is totally up to the individual. To me, LOTR is the best ever. Period. End of story. I have seen some critically acclaimed "Masterpieces" that put me to sleep, just like some of you went to sleep during LOTR. ( Blasphemy BTW)

 

View on, and let the debate continue.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Bottom line people is this. "Best Ever" is totally up to the individual. To me, LOTR is the best ever. Period. End of story. I have seen some critically acclaimed "Masterpieces" that put me to sleep, just like some of you went to sleep during LOTR. ( Blasphemy BTW)

 

View on, and let the debate continue.

219719[/snapback]

 

You summed up what I have ben trying to say pretty much... I can't watch Gone With The Wind, personally.. now THAT is a movie that is WAY too long and drawn out, and it is on the Top 100 list! To each is own

[Toledo Bill]

I don't want to rip into posters who love these movies (I own them and enjoy the hell out of them as well) but I keep seeing things like this thrown around; "Best work of art ever", "best films ever", "will never be equaled.”  So a question: how much about film, its theories and its history (both domestic and international) do you know?  Have you seen the films of Kurosawa, Tarkovsky, Renoir, Ozu, Tati, Bresson and a plethora of others I can't possibly list here?  Having seen those films are you really equipped with the knowledge to understand what those filmmakers were doing and how they went about doing it?

 

Film is a language, and like any language the more one learns about it the more one is able to understand its subtleties and complexities.  Most of the people throwing around this praise I'd assume have a very limited understanding of film.  I’d assume most here have a pretty high reading level, so this might be a pretty good analogy:  Dr. Seuss wrote some great books, for what they were.  But once one progressed in their understanding of the English language these books weren't enough to satiate your appetite for something more.  Someone without a background in film saying the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is the "best piece of art work ever" is like someone with a 2nd grade reading level calling "Mr. Brown Can Moo, Can You?" the greatest piece of literature ever written.  It is a good book, hell it might be the one I enjoy reading to my son the most (well, that or “The Sneetches”)…but simply enjoying it and it being “the greatest piece of literature ever” are two different things.

 

I'm sure I'll get some angry replies to this as most people don't appreciate being told they don't know something (and it tends to piss them off).  That's okay, let'er rip!

 

Anyway, it’s a game of semantics I suppose.  I have no problem with someone calling the films their “favorite of all time” or something of the like, but if you start throwing around praise as the “greatest film of all time” you had better be able to back it up with a comprehensive knowledge of film.

 

Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.

218968[/snapback]

 

Yes... "favorite" film makes more sense. But, as far as your "comprehensive knowledge" comment... what do you mean? Oscar awards etc. are nothing but people's personal opinions (ie: "favorite movie"). Thinking that your opinion or a group of critics opinions mean some film is "the greatest ever" is a load of crap. To each his own... if someone feels a movie such as The Lord of the Rings" is the best ever... than it is... to that individual. "Comprehensive knowledge"... come on.

[Toledo Bill]

I think you are being WAY too hard on people! I have watched Visconti's supposedly grand masterpieces, and read a couple of Bronte's supposed great works, and I didn't think they were that impressive!!! Art and literature is all in the eye of the beholder!!! For some Picasso is a great artist; to others, Monet was far better.

 

You don't need an extensive background in ANYTHING to think what YOU consider to be a great piece of ANYTHING. It is a serious pet peeve of mine that people on their lofty academic mountain can tell the world what is great and what is not!! I find it offensive, really... nobody writes books or creates films or paints paintings for critics; they do it because people ENJOY them!!! I'll take my Dumas or Monet and let the abstract artists and the lovers of Thomas Hardy and Emily Bronte have their enjoyment.

 

Calling the LOTR series one of the greatest series of films of all time is NOT a crime... it is an expression of the love of a set of films that captures the imagination, wows people, and gives children AND adults great pleasure!!! If that is wrong because I haven't seen a Kurosawa movie, then I am wrong, and I will GLADLY admit it!

219104[/snapback]

 

Sorry... I posted a reply to his message before reading your comments... well put!

[Toledo Bill]

I would never tell anybody what is great and what isn't.  You'll never hear me claiming, "such and such is the greatest film ever."  No matter how much I know about the subject, I'll never feel I know enough to make such an arrogant statement.  I'm not speaking about the greatness of LOTR, I'm speaking purely of the ability of people to make a valid argument.  In the end everything is subjective, you are correct.  However, if you have no knowledge of a subject in question your opinion means holds no weight.  Its the equivalent of somebody not following politics and saying they think Bush is the worst president that ever and knowing very little about previous presidents and their policies.  Sure, you're welcome to your opinion, but without some sort of foundation of knowledge that opinion isn't worth much.

 

As for Visconte's "supposed" great works, this speaks precisely to what I was talking about earlier.  If someone watches mostly Hollywood films and gets accustomed to a very specific type of filmmaking and then is thrown something like Visconte, of course they're not going to like it.  That being said, there are plenty of people with backgrounds in film that also dislike Visconte’s films.  The liking or disliking of his films isn't what's important, it’s the ability to make a coherent and intelligent argument about the films...and not just in a literary sense (which is how just about all people, and critics, judge films...because that's the background they have, literature).

 

As I said before, at its foundation my problem is one of semantics.  There is a big difference between saying “favorite” and “greatest”…one had better know what they’re speaking about if they start throwing around the latter because it’s the type of statement that can, and should, be challenged.  The ironic thing is that the more one knows about a subject, the less likely they are to throw around those types of statements because they understand how little they really know.

 

I also find it humorous that you have such a distain for the academic community.  It’s a pure defense mechanism; you must feel this way to justify your position.  Think of it a different way.  What if I started throwing around statements about somebody else’s area of expertise, say, Bio Chemistry?  Would my opinions on the subject (something I know zero about) be just as valid as a Bio Chemists?  I mean, all that academic stuff is pure hogwash!

219225[/snapback]

 

Get off your high horse, Pilgrim! Again... to each his own. If my daughter thinks The Wiggles meet the Three Stooges is the greatest film ever... it is.