Okay, it hasn't been released yet in a lot of places but I figure there's going to be a post on it so I might as well start one.
Have you seen it, and what did you think (spoilers hidden of course)?
If you haven't seen it, what are your expectations?
Do you think it'll live up to the buzz and hype he critics are giving it?
98% on RottenTomatoes.com so far - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/TheLordoftheRingsTheReturnoftheKing-1127213/
95% on Metacritic so far - http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/returnoftheking/
And what did you think about Christopher Lee being cut from the film?
I've already seen it.
I thought it was awesome.
I say this with a heavy heart, and it'll always have a special place in my heart, but Star Wars has been replaced as my favorite Trilogy.
Spoiler
When Eowyn kills the flying Nazgul ... I literally stood up and cheered!
I was
very shocked that Chris Lee wasn't in there ... but truthfully it didn't hurt the movie. He'll, of course, be in the extended version of the DVD.
When does it release around the world? I went to the midnight showing on Tuesday night. (its official US release was today (the 17th))
In a few words this trilogy is just AMAZING film making.
I think filming them all at the same time like Peter Jackson did was the key ... the continueity was just perfect because of it!
Anyway ... I loved it!
])]v[
I thought it was quite good. Definitely better than The Two Towers, but Fellowship is still easily my favorite of the three.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Thu 18/12/2003 04:00:57
Spoiler
When Eowyn kills the flying Nazgul ... I literally stood up and cheered!
Spoiler
You don't read much, do you?
I shall now take it upon myself to laugh at you for several hours, and then collapse into a fit of hissing and random bodily jerking.
I haven't seen the movie yet, and I'm anxious about seeing it. I've yet been unimpressed with the previous two movies. I watch them, and I can't help but chuckle at the poor acting and mediocre digital effects. I keep waiting for Uncle Tom to come out and sing us the tale of Brer Rabbit. I don't see the trilogy as epic, but some horrid trash designed to get votes from the hollywood crowd. I don't know, for some reason the films are bringing out the worst in me, and I cannot sit and watch without becoming a bit steamed. Funny, the cartoon versions never pissed me off so.
*back to mocking mandarb* HAHAHAHAHHA!! OMFG, you loser!!
Mediocre digital effects? Could you please point us to what you'd consider top-quality CGI?
I admit, I was a bit harsh. The effects probably are damn good for the existing technology, or at least damned standard. Certainly better than some. But I hate to see cartoon characters spliced with live action. It rarely works, and ends up loking corny as hell. I was disappointed that gollum was cgi, because I'd have loved to see an actor show true talent and make himself look that pathetic without digital make-up effects. I was disappointed with a few other elements, but it was mainly concerned with the puppets.
A top notch special effect, to me, is one I do not notice as being a special effect, whether it's digital or one of m0ds' fireworks experiments. I don't care if it's cgi, I never have. The technology used should not carry the damned movie, nor should it be the reason to marvel at a film. There are probably many effects I didn't notice as being anything other than part of the scene, and that means they were done right. I shouldn't be able to pick them out because they should be part of the story.
I know that not everything is going to be perfect. I know what I see is going to reflect the skill and personality of the artist involved. I just tend to grade on a harsher curve than you, trap. I think a 'imho' belonged at the end of my previous post, but I thought that was understood. It is my opinion, and I have a right to be disappointed by what I see. I'm sick of seeing talentless fucks make wild movements with no attempt whatsoever to show any emotion. I'm tired of the value of a face being the sole reason a person is chosen to play a role. I'm sick of people oohin and ahhing over something strictly because it's fancy and techy and would look cool in a videogame. I'm tired of seeing my favorite literary works being butchered by hollywood for the sake of a buck. (I'm fine with LOTR being made a film, it's the merchandising that ticks me off. and the need for money-making through special editions and toys and fucking "Come watch all 3 back-to-back you zitty virgin nerds! We love it when you abandon Star Wars and come to us! Give us your money, oh trendy geeks! Here, you need the official limited edition stool crapped out by the dude who played that guy to the right of that orc!")
My disappointment translates itself into harsh critism. Sorry if I touched you in the wrong way, trap. I'm jaded. It all sucks. And I'm boycotting Cat in the Hat and Mike Myers.
But Cat in the Hat uses make-up effects, doesn't it?
This post is largely directed to Yuletide/Bruisier, but I'm sure everyone who reads it with me will agree.
Yes, I HAVE read your apology, but I still think you're being too harsh. If you go to watch a movie for the special effects, then you're going to the movie's for all the wrong reasons. If we were talking about X-men, or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then this post would be completely different. But Lotr??
Tolkien's masterpiece represents the eternal struggle for power; the battle between right and wrong, and the ability to know the difference. It is NOT about Urukhai, or Nazgul, or Wringwraiths. It is NOT about Gollum's animation, simply because the image you see of him isn't what counts. The story behind him does.
Smeagol is the exhibition of 'ying and yang'. You don't need a computer animation to justify it.
Don't get me wrong, though. I love a good effect as much as the next person, but I wouldn't try and belittle a classic like this just because it didn't meet my expectations. Because every single one of my expectations are set too damn high, and no one could get it right, in my opinion. Not even me. That's why God gave us imaginations: so that we don't NEED to rely on good FX to believe the story and what it holds for each one.
Tolkien didn't write the book with animation in mind, and Peter Jackson made the movie from the inspiration Tolkien gave him. It's not about the quality of graphics that makes a movie good.
It's the quality of the story. And that's something that NO animation can cover...
I say this to everyone, and I hope that they will agree.
Please ignore her.
I havn´t seen it yet, first point (I´ll see it on monday 17th December, cos seems impossible to get a ticket for the weekend) But I´ve read the book, and Reading that Saruman won´t appear has been quite shoking... IMO, the fall of Saruman is a very important part of the book.
I don´t agree with Bruised because for me, the two previous films have been examples of a good use of the Digital effects, but I agree in some way in the "spirit" of her post. Digital effects somethimes make that something seems to "spare" in the film. I remember how dissapointing was "Jar Jar Binks" because their articulations, their movmements, their skin shape was too artificial, their robe was also "plastic". The excuse that he was an alien and we can´t use the standard of animals of the Earth is not valid for me. Same for Jabba the Jutt... He was supposed to be a huge crawling animal, clumsy when moving in the Earth. They could have get a realistic movement if they had inspired in something familiat, like the movement of a walrus or a seal, but they invented some kind of "worm" movement that resulted strange.
Also with Spiderman... their movements were too "plastics"... Have you seen Ocean´s eleven? there is an acrobat that the thieves use for robbering... his jumps for avoiding the lasers beams are spectacular, but the best of all is that they look real.
They´re just two examples. And it´s my oppinion. :)
Saw it yesterday, thought it was wonderful. Once the extended DVD comes out, I will most likely rate it as highly as Fellowship. And if this one doesn't get properly recognised at the Oscars, that will be the final nail in the coffin of that award's credibility, to be frank. Perhaps they were holding out to recognise the entire trilogy with this film - I hope so.
Spoiler - do not read if you haven't seen
Having read the book, I was worried about rumoured changes to the ending (and parts of the film in general), but the only major omission was The Scouring Of The Shire (understandably), in which the hobbits come back find Saruman's taken over and ruined the Shire and wage their own little hobbit-war to reclaim the place.
It was a big relief that Frodo still went to Valinor, Merry still stabbed the Witch King, Shelob didn't talk, and the last line from the books was left intact. An excellent ending, I'm glad PJ was this faithful to the books after some alarming liberties were taken with characters and events in TTT.
Standout scenes: Obviously the scene in which Ewoyn and Merry take on the Witch King was incredible. The satisfaction of them both rising to such heroic status was awesome, and then it suddenly lurched into one of the most emotional scenes of the film, between Theoden and Ewoyn. Amazing.
Probably my favourite section of the whole story is Shelob's Lair/The Choices Of Master Samwise, and it was dealt with wonderfully. Whilst we didn't get the full emotional impact of the scene when Sam talks to his (believed to be) dead friend and decides to take the ring himself, it was sad enough, and Shelob was better and scarier than I'd ever imagined. The separation of Sam and Frodo here worked well, the audience was noticeably roused when Sam appeared holding the light saying "Get away from him you filth" and proceeded to spike her after a wonderfully desperate fight sequence. Excellent stuff.
In terms of acting, Elijah Wood and Sean Astin were superb throughout, Mount Doom in particular showcasing some great stuff from them.
Saruman and Wormtongue not being in it at all was a shame, whilst they'll surely turn up in the extended DVD, they deserve some part in the theatrical cut. Brad Dourif was great as Wormtongue in TTT, and Saruman should have been properly dealt with. For one thing, we didn't get told why the Palantir (crystal ball thing) wasn't in Orthanc tower anymore.
Haven't seen ROTK (yet) - but I've seen the first two parts several times and I have to say that it has been quite a while since I've seen a movie that does CG in such a convincing way.
To me the CG in LOTR works because the special FX in these movies are not EXCLUSIVELY done with computers. For instance; when I first saw the two Argonath statues in the lake in the Fellowship, they looked like incredibly convincing CG. When I saw the DVD documentary my jaw dropped when I learned that they where two big styrofoam props ...
The computer graphics in LOTR are very transparent, they never become CG for the sake of CG. Even Gollum is played by a real actor (who's then motion captured and skinned).
I like the movies because I can watch them and NOT go "miniature ... CG ... miniature ... matte painting" in my head while watching the scenes. And there are bucketloads of movies where I do this subconsciously (sp?).
IMHO of course... ;D
Quote
I say this with a heavy heart, and it'll always have a special place in my heart, but Star Wars has been replaced as my favorite Trilogy.
As always Darth, you take the words right out of my mouth.
I am very lucky in that I have NOT read the books. Which, I know, is sad in the opinions of many of you. However, without even reading the books, I know that when I do they will easily become my favorite books. Ever.
I thought the trilogy on the whole was absolutely amazing. With this barrage of trilogies lately, it is nice to see that this one not only holds up but stands above any movie of it's sort.
Bruised: You are not being very nice :'(. The Eowyn scene was amazing, having read the book or not.
I'm really disappointed to hear about all of the changes from the books. My girlfriend has read them and she has been loving the movies, however there are a few things that have bothered her. I hope that the extended DVD will have the Saruman and Wormtongue scenes in them(if they were filmed, were they?).
later,
-junc
I haven't read the books either, and it's a shame too because they are literary classics... but for some ungodly reason, my local bookstore doesn't seem to ever have any bloody copies of any of the books. >:(
I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.
I can't wait to see the third one. I'm sure I'll enjoy it thoroughly. Although, they do need an Intermission with a movie that long, and I'm kind of angry with them for not doing so. This movie doesn't dislodge any liking I have towards the Star Wars trilogy. In fact I had to choose to watch a trilogy all in a row, I'd probably choose Indiana Jones, as it's entertaining, and more importantly short.
I'd just like to say, that I've read the books, and while I enjoyed them. I don't think they're so much a masterpiece anymore. I've read better fantasy. It was the first of it's kind, a milestone, no doubt, but I don't consider it the cream of the crop. Not that the books aren't good, but Tolkien gives waay too much information about the history of middle earth, than anyone needs to know, and his work is not perfect. I actually prefer The Hobbit to the LOTR trilogy. I think this movie is a wonderful translation to the book, and while I don't consider it the best books in the world, it's a book you guys should read.
-MillsJROSS
I really haven't come across a more gripping story, and I read a fair bit. As it's fantasy, some people seem to snobbishly think that it's silly and can't reach a certain standard, but it's fantastic populist fiction. You can take away all sorts of lessons from it, but most importantly it's a bloody great yarn, with characters you grow to care about. Even a term of an English Lit degree hasn't jaded me into not seeing those as the unmistakable qualities of a great book. It's certainly my favourite novel, I can re-read it with enormous pleasure. Christopher Lee who plays Saruman re-reads it every year, and I can see myself getting into that habit.
As movie trilogies go, I've always loved the trinity of trilogies - Star Wars, Indy, and Back To The Future - but LOTR is now right up there with those. The extended cuts of the films are the icing on the cake, they're awesome, they feel far more complete - but watching the 3 in a row will take some serious stamina (it will take up approx. 11 hours of your day!). I'm sure plenty will go through with that though.
Quote from: Os Último Quão Queijo ^_^ on Thu 18/12/2003 20:14:33
I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.
I haven't seen ROTK yet, but I thought I'd mention that him getting the rights wouldn't be a problem, but he doesn't want to do the Hobbit. Three very long movies in a row takes a lot out of everyone involved, and he's said he just doesn't have the energy to do another. Maybe eventually, though. I'd love to see it.
I haven't seen it yet either. I did love the first two parts and I sure will enjoy part three.
But, there is one small thing which I fear the movie to omit:
After having read the book several times (eight times so far and not having enough), I found out that the journey leaves Frodo a broken man (Hobbit). He even fails to resist the Ring's power in the final moment.
I DO hope, they got that, for this is in my opinion another thing that distinguishes Tolkien from popular Fantasy authors: The 'Hero' does not emerge from the story all full of glory and fame, but as a sick man who is no longer fit to live in this world and the 'final deed' has been done by someone else (Gollum).
But now one thing that does irritate me: I've seen in the trailer that Aragorn NOW gets Narsil. Why not earlier? In the book, it was given to him in Rivendell and its fame kinda helped him becoming a friend of Eomer... I do not understand why this was done!
But, well, I'll just have a look and then I'll see.
("Schaun' ma mal, dann seh' ma scho"-Der Kaiser)
I've only seen the first movie so far (on DVD; I'm very reluctant to go to the cinema for these, as they'd be German versions and I
hate translations from languages I know, especially since for some reason they're always bad, no matter how much money there is to be made), but if that's any indication I'll probably like the others.
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 18/12/2003 20:39:17
...but Tolkien gives waay too much information about the history of middle earth...
For many exactly that is an important part of what makes Tolkien's work so great. I, for example, would have been happier if he had found time and room for
more details on some matters. Remember - it's not as though LotR is the central work, and all the rest just stuff surrounding it; the novel is merely the largest individual story.
Spoiler
(quote author=Isegrim) (not using proper quote tags because the spoiler tag doesn't work on quotes)
After having read the book several times (eight times so far and not having enough), I found out that the journey leaves Frodo a broken man (Hobbit). He even fails to resist the Ring's power in the final moment.
(/quote)
I don't think they would be horrible enough to change THAT. If they did, there would be no point in letting Gollum tag along at all, except for comic relief... but I've read reviews by people who know the book, and I'm sure they would have yelled bloody murder about this, which they haven't; so it probably didn't happen.
I'm very annoyed to hear they completely dropped the Scouring of the Shire, though. That's a major mistake to my mind. I know the movie isn't the book and all, but I do think the movie should have something to do with the original book if it's going to call itself based on it, and I'd say the Scouring is a very important part of the story.
Basically, I'm in two minds about the movies... on one hand, they're insanely great, and insanely great movies are always a good thing. On the other hand, they're leaving such a big impression in the audience's minds and in the film world in general that nobody's going to make an attempt to be truer to the book for decades, which is sad.
Here's a few books, in the fantasy realms I think are better than LOTR
The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)
The Amber Chronicles, by Roger Zelazny
I'd say Terry Pratchet, too, but even in the fantasy realm, its more satire than anything else.
Enchantment, Orson Scott Card
I probably know a few more, but I don't have my collection of books with me at the moment. I'd go into sci-fi, which I enjoy better anyway, but since I have that biased oppinion, I won't mention those books.
I've read the first two Wheel Of Time books, they were entertaining stories but I don't remember them being overly original or rich, though it's been a while. There were some good characters but I didn't think the world was as interesting as Tolkien's, which is so steeped in myths and history that it immerses me totally. Also Jordan seemed to borrow some story elements, and wasn't Lan a bit like Aragorn, and the boys quite hobbit-like in that they were simple boys then their lives were turned round by a quest?
Terry Pratchett is very entertaining but Discworld seems more a vehicle for his satire and other comedy, which is very well done. I don't imagine he's thought of his world's history in such detail as Tolkien has, so his 'realm' isn't as strong, but that's hardly the point, right?
Tolkien seems to have 'researched' partly by inventing this massive amount of what would seem to be superfluous backstory, to most authors, but actually helped make Lord Of The Rings so compelling and immersing. When I first read the Appendices and got stuck into The Silmarillion, I couldn't believe how much he'd thought up about the races, and events preceding of The Hobbit. For me, that makes him the master.
It's funny that you say that others might consider the backstory as superfluous, when he would most likely consider the novel superficial compared to the background which was in his eyes the more important work.
Anyone ever read the Chronicles of Prydain?
I read those throughout middleschool- the Book of Three, Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran the Wanderer, The High King. Anybody with me?
Las: Yeah - I've read that he actually considered 'The Silmarillion' was going to be his greatest single achievement, and anyone who's read that will know that it is more difficult, concentrates less on character, and has an even more epic sweep of events.
It's the collection of a bunch of invented mythology that must make it more special to Tolkien - Silmarillion is richer in the sheer amount of events it takes in. But LOTR has such a more personal touch with its cast of well-made characters (and they ARE good characters, don't listen to anyone saying they're 'cardboard cut-outs' etc.), that probably most of us see that as the greatest work.
So logically I'd see things like The Silmarillion as a companion piece or 'backstory', but of course it is something in its own right, it's just that LOTR has become the popular work, for obvious reasons.
Here are some other questions for people to ponder in this post.
What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?
Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?
Also, the Gollum Rap: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/gollum.php
i'm still sad they didn't include me in the first movie.
I've just returned from the Return of the King premiere. What more can I say that hasn't been said before? Not much, so I'll just repeat. Amazing! Specatacular! Epic! Absorbing! This is a true masterpiece, and it won't matched soon. This trilogy is the ultimate cinematic experience.
After a rather long exposition (interestingly, it ends in Gandalf saying "The board is set, the pieces are moving") it begins. Trust me, you have never seen anything such as "it" before. Eliphants (or, oliphaunts, if my memory doesn't deceive me), eagles, ring-wraiths, trolls, orcs, humans, ghosts - all is to mixed to create the best action scene ever. Its spectacularity is enhanced by the fantastic camera work. Often, it is hard to believe that men managed to create something of such sheer scale.
I liked Jackson's interpretation of the novel. Frodo's struggle against the burden of the Ring was very well conveyed, even is somewhat late. Sam's devotion to his master was truly touching. I was really impressed how Jackson managed to emphasise Eowyn's desire for equality in the spider-web of sub-plots he had to handle. He also stayed true to most of the "longish" moments of the book, ignoring the crowd's wish for blood. Peter Jackson really understood the characters, although I still dislike his choice of making Gimli the movie's clown.
However, there is a major setback. I think the soundtrack of this part was worse than the those of the previous two. It lacked the thrilling and moving touch of the former ones. I especially missed "Amon Hen".
Personally, I am not disappointed Jackson chose to remove the Scouring of the Shire. It would have just made the movie considerably longer with a segement that isn't particulary important. I am much more bothered by the abscence of smaller moments from the book, such as the conversation with the Mouth of Sauron, the conversation with Saruman in Isengard and the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-King, as they were much more relevant to the story.
QuoteThe Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)
I've read all of the books in the series, except the last one which I didn't finish because it was just too bad. I did like the first two, but I think that they are no match to the Lord of the Rings, mostly for one reason - it's a total rip-off. There are several boys who leave their village and discover the world, guided by a magic wielder, and go to the very homeland of all evil. In many ways, The Eye of the World is the Lord of the Rings Lite, without the detail and the language.
QuoteWhat do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?
I do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.
Overall, this is one of the greats of modern cinema. When the hobbit's cry when Frodo leaves them, so does the viewer cry when this amzing, two-year, 10-hours epic trilogy come to an end.
Barcik:
QuoteI do not regard it is a classic. As I have explained in the Indy thread, I only call timeless movies, movies that will not be affected by time, classics. The Lord of the Rings trilogy will. Sooner or later, a move spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.
You misunderstood me.
I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.
But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.
In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.
Could you even describe it as an epic?
QuoteI've read all of the books in the series, except the last one which I didn't finish because it was just too bad. I did like the first two, but I think that they are no match to the Lord of the Rings, mostly for one reason - it's a total rip-off. There are several boys who leave their village and discover the world, guided by a magic wielder, and go to the very homeland of all evil. In many ways, The Eye of the World is the Lord of the Rings Lite, without the detail and the language.
I can't quite see how the Wheel of Time is a rip off. Good vs. Evil? If that's your premise Lord of the Rings is a rip off of many books. Is it youth going off into an adventure and thus growing? Been done before LOTR, as well. I won't argue they don't share similarities. They're both fantasy. The hero's are both young, and have the power to destroy the evil. I think the ring wraiths (or whatever they're called), share some similarities with the Morgul(Or something similar)? It's really not a rip off at all, it just shares some similarities. The only problem with Jordan, is he keeps inventing new enemies and not ending the series. I believe someone told me Jordan planned on it only being four books. So I give Tolkien props for finishing LOTR. I just enjoyed Jordans earlier works more. And I think it's a book that shows I'm not against rich detail, as those books average anywhere from 500 to 1200 pages. But I think Zelazny's work is my favorite fantasy, I'd suggest it to anyone. He also didn't finish his work (mainly because he died), but there is an end (so in other words, he still had a few loose ends that he was probably going to work out, but he finished most of it before his death, and his last book ended well enough to consider it finished enough, although you crave for more).
Quote from: DGMacphee on Thu 18/12/2003 23:49:33
What do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?
Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?
LotR is not a personal favourite the way LoA is but I do believe that the people who love these films now are going to continue loving them for years to come. So yes I think the LotR trilogy will earn the status of classic.
Barcik:
QuoteSooner or later, a more spectacular high-scale epic will come out, making new audiences laugh at the old dated attempt of 2001-2003.
Perhaps a future generation of filmgoers will be unimpressed by it the same way as many current filmgoers are un-impressed by epics of the past. However, I think the people who are seeing them now will always consider them classics and that many people who see them for the first time 20 years from now will understand why.
I like the idea of a King Kong remake. The original is a much loved film but it has certainly dated. Personally I find it unwatchable due to the acting style of the time. Jackson I think is the right director for such a remake because (if the way he adapted LotR is any indication) he will treat the original with the proper amount of reverence while still making the story his own.
I, personally, am not so happy about PJ's re-invention of King Kong. I think Lord of The Rings is a movie that will stick in people's minds for a long time to come, and trying to 'out-do' it with a giant ape (or bipedal mammal of some kind...) is kind of stupid.
People are BOUND to compare the two sides of the coin, and no one in their right minds will try to prove that King Kong is richer in plot/character/moral/emotion etc than LotR. I also think the 'ape on empire building' scene has become a cliche of sorts. I mean, who HASN'T seen a cheesey animation trying to rip it off? People are just going to laugh at PJ for trying to take it seriously. Or maybe I'm wrong....
Maybe....
We shall see..... :P
On the other front, people trying to downplay the importance of LotR's backstory is ridiculous. I think that's the warcry of people who don't understand the appendices, or just find it too hard going to finish.
About the only MAJOR criticisms I'd have of RotK is the omission of Christopher Lee and the Scouring (I know Sauroman will be in the DVD, but still....).
These are not just 'time fillers' in the book, which is what most novellists are using these days (Just read Pratchett's 'Hogfather' for a prime example. The last dozen pages or so were written purely to meet his page quota). Tolkien wasn't interested with publisher's comments when he wrote. He wrote these scenes because he believed they conveyed a vital message to the reader. And that is something Jackson DEFINITELY should not have left out.
Jackson doesn't much care for the Scouring apparently, and didn't even consider filming it from what I can gather. Personally, whilst some may think he's arrogant to alter Tolkien's story to that extent, I think that it works better for film this way.
Already I've read reviews saying that Jackson seems to not know where to end the film, with 20 minutes of 'could-be' endings, and whilst I don't agree with that at all, I think it could have really damaged the dramatic impact if there'd been the extra action of the Scouring tagged on. As a Tolkien fan I'd love to see it filmed, but in the interests of a tighter cinema script, the omission was probably a wise choice.
I think a lot of the adaptation of the book to script, which is obviously a pretty hard thing to do, has been extremely well-done. New scenes have been added throughout the trilogy, and have often served to very effectively condense several ideas from the books at once. Sometimes characters say lines that others originally said in the story, there's actually been a lot of fiddling around like that - but the general spirit of the books has been left intact, and that's what's important to fans.
As for King Kong, I think people will be intelligent enough not to compare LOTR and that too much. I don't think Jackson's yet said that he wants to 'out-do' LOTR with King Kong, and he'd be silly to say that. It's very different, I think his motivation for this film is that it's what made him want to make films. Also maybe there's an element of going for something less taxing. Whilst it's still sure to be a massive blockbuster, it's not the enormous undertaking that LOTR was, with it's *eight-year* total commitment for Jackson, very long shooting and reshoots, worries about adaptation of a massive text, etc. And Kong is due for a remake I think, it should be an exciting film.
Haven't seen the film, and probably won't. I did see the first film, and in my book it's Jackson's weakest film so far. Even The Frighteners rocked in comparison. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't get it. So what if the creatures look real if you don't give a shit about any of the characters anyway? I'm sure Tolkien is to blame, or it's rather the thousands of people, Mr. Lucas included, who mined his books to a degree that the "real thing" seems like a total parody. Yes, anyone who grew up around people playing D&D knows that dwarves carry big axes and don't like elves. But there must be more to a character than that.
I can't help thinking how much more I'd have enjoyed these films if it was just Peter Jackson and his old pals running around with a 16mm camera Bad Taste style. As it is now, it's like a Wagner opera, much too long, much too loud, and SO pretentious.
Give me Heavenly Creatures any day. Now THAT's how to use special effects.
Edit: After you're done kicking my ass, I'll be back to tell you my opinion of Star Wars :)
double post ... sorry ....
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Thu 18/12/2003 22:23:17Here's a few books, in the fantasy realms I think are better than LOTR
The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan (The first books anyway. He now is trying elongate the series as much as he can)
I think if Jordan had kept up the quality of the books as up to
The Shadow Rising (the best book in the series in my opinion - when Perrin goes home and the battle for the Two Rivers ... that whole part is just amazing!!) I think I would agree that the WoT is a better series. But LotR still tops it for me! The last few books in the WoT have just dragged on and on and on ... it's like, "Come on Jordan ... do
something!!!"
I may be a simple minded SOB but my favorite fantasy series is the Midkemian stuff from Raymond Feist. (I know some of you will hammer me for that) From the Riftwar through the Serpent War I just love that saga! Anybody read those?
QuoteWhat do you think about some critics saying LOTR now ranks among classic epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben Hur?
Also, what do you think of Jackson's next project: A remake of King Kong?
I definately think it's up there with the classic epics. Any movie that can
LITERALLY get me to stand up and cheer (as I did on several ocassions throughout LotR) is, at least for me, an epic of mega proportions!!
I think this movie will set standards that will be followed for many years to come. I'm hoping it'll start film makers wanting to do more movies like this! I mean, with Star Wars, sure we might anticipate the next one ... but we have to wait 3 frickin' years for it! (although to be honest I'm not really anticipating the next Star Wars that much) The way LotR was released was brilliant in my opinion. Keep the waiting down, and give us MORE!!! (disclaimer: as long as the over-all quality doesn't suffer)
All my 'favorite' movies are the ones that after I've seen them in the theater I (depressingly) think, "I'll never get to see this again for the first time" That's how I know it's a great movie (for me). Movies like;
The Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan, and Dude, Where's My Car?As for the re-make of
King Kong? I hadn't heard about that ... but I think I'll hold off until I see something of it but my first thought was, "Haven't there been enough
King Kong movies?"
Oh and ** DM kicks GarageGothic in his keester ** ;D
])]v[
Quote from: Pestilence on Thu 18/12/2003 21:20:19
Quote from: Os Último Quão Queijo ^_^ on Thu 18/12/2003 20:14:33
I just hope that Peter Jackson gets the rights to make The Hobbit.
I haven't seen ROTK yet, but I thought I'd mention that him getting the rights wouldn't be a problem, but he doesn't want to do the Hobbit. Three very long movies in a row takes a lot out of everyone involved, and he's said he just doesn't have the energy to do another. Maybe eventually, though. I'd love to see it.
He stated in an interview that if he gets the rights, he would do the movie after King Kong, though he does want to wait for a fair while. The reason why he is having trouble is that Tolkiens family apparently doesn't own the rights to the Hobbit anymore, or they were bought by someone else, and they aren't cooperating...
Quote
Barcik:
You misunderstood me.
I know it's not a classic, cause it's still a new movie.
But I'm asking if it ranks among classic epics.
In other words, does it have the same depth and scope as a film from David Lean.
Could you even describe it as an epic?
Yes, most defiently.
QuoteI can't quite see how the Wheel of Time is a rip off. Good vs. Evil? If that's your premise Lord of the Rings is a rip off of many books. Is it youth going off into an adventure and thus growing? Been done before LOTR, as well. I won't argue they don't share similarities. They're both fantasy. The hero's are both young, and have the power to destroy the evil. I think the ring wraiths (or whatever they're called), share some similarities with the Morgul(Or something similar)? It's really not a rip off at all, it just shares some similarities. The only problem with Jordan, is he keeps inventing new enemies and not ending the series. I believe someone told me Jordan planned on it only being four books. So I give Tolkien props for finishing LOTR. I just enjoyed Jordans earlier works more. And I think it's a book that shows I'm not against rich detail, as those books average anywhere from 500 to 1200 pages. But I think Zelazny's work is my favorite fantasy, I'd suggest it to anyone. He also didn't finish his work (mainly because he died), but there is an end (so in other words, he still had a few loose ends that he was probably going to work out, but he finished most of it before his death, and his last book ended well enough to consider it finished enough, although you crave for more).
It's been a while since I read it, but I remember than even that I noticed how much alike the two books were. I think it's more than just similarites. Look at the following:
1. Rand, Perrin and Mat - The Hobbits. Both are taken away from their nice rural country, knowing nothing about the big world.
2. Min - Galadriel. The all essential lady with visions.
3. Trollocs - Orcs. The stupid corrupted creatures whose strength lies in their numbers.
4. The statues in the chapter "Flight Down the Arinelle" - The Argonath. Both are by a river.
5. The Forsaken - The Nazgul. Group of cursed men, serving the dark master forever.
6. The Dark One - Sauron. The all powerful lord of all evil, wanting to control the land.
7. Moiraine - Gandalf. The smart magic-wielder leading the party.
8. Lan - Aragorn. Both are uncrowned kings (however, Lan doesn't, at least for now, fulfill his destiny).
9. Shayol Ghul - Mount Doom. The very home of evil, where the party must venture.
10. Leaving Two Rivers - Leaving the Shire. The party must leave their home because their presence puts it in danger.
I think this is more than just innocent coincedences.
QuoteYes, anyone who grew up around people playing D&D knows that dwarves carry big axes and don't like elves. But there must be more to a character than that.
After Tolkien started the new wave of modern fantasy, such creature quickly became sterotypes, default characters without any depth. In due time, even the original was deemed as shallow. However, you must remember that Tolkien had no basic character too copy. Today's cliche falsy veils Tolkien's rich characters. Gimli and Legolas are much more than that. They are two people who are at first hostile to each other, but learn to accept, and later love one another. They are two people prejudiced against the other's race, but learn that there is more than their initial racist view.
QuoteIt's been a while since I read it, but I remember than even that I noticed how much alike the two books were. I think it's more than just similarites. Look at the following:
1. Rand, Perrin and Mat - The Hobbits. Both are taken away from their nice rural country, knowing nothing about the big world.
2. Min - Galadriel. The all essential lady with visions.
3. Trollocs - Orcs. The stupid corrupted creatures whose strength lies in their numbers.
4. The statues in the chapter "Flight Down the Arinelle" - The Argonath. Both are by a river.
5. The Forsaken - The Nazgul. Group of cursed men, serving the dark master forever.
6. The Dark One - Sauron. The all powerful lord of all evil, wanting to control the land.
7. Moiraine - Gandalf. The smart magic-wielder leading the party.
8. Lan - Aragorn. Both are uncrowned kings (however, Lan doesn't, at least for now, fulfill his destiny).
9. Shayol Ghul - Mount Doom. The very home of evil, where the party must venture.
10. Leaving Two Rivers - Leaving the Shire. The party must leave their home because their presence puts it in danger.
I think this is more than just innocent coincedences.
1. This is commonly done in many books, and to say that Tolkien was the orignator of young men leaving home (from a rural areo or not), is a weak connection.
2. People with visions? Thats been done before, too. I think Mr. Tolkien stole it from the Greeks.
3. Oh my god! They both have evil creatures that attack in masses and are general slaves to the bidding of there overlord! Only Tolkien is allowed to use such enemies! Why would the army consist of anything else. A mass army of intelligent creatures who think for themselves? If this were possible, they wouldn't be evil.
4. Statues by a river? That's not even important to the plot, it's detail. You might as well say that all the characters breathed in oxygen and used words with vowels.
5. I'll give you this one. I noticed this simiarity, as well.
6. There's got to be some sort of conflict in a book. An entity that is all evil is one of the best methods, in fantasy. Many fantasy novels share this theme.
7. A magic wielder in a fantasy novel? No! I don't believe it. Tell me this isn't so.
8. I can give you this one, kind of. Except that one knows he's a king the other doesn't.
9. Where else does one go to attack evil? 34th street?
10. If only Jordan had wrote it so they stayed at home and sat by the fire, making shadow puppet into the night, and knitting mittens for the winter. Oh what a tale that would be!
All in all, while they may share several things that most fantasy novels share. Jordan's approach and Tolkiens are completely different, they basically have the same begining and the same end (well, if Jordan would finish his work. He just won't give the series up, which hurts his work, because you kind of need an end).
QuoteI may be a simple minded SOB but my favorite fantasy series is the Midkemian stuff from Raymond Feist. (I know some of you will hammer me for that) From the Riftwar through the Serpent War I just love that saga! Anybody read those?
I most certainly did, and this is also one of my favourite fantasy novels. In fact, I was thinking about buying one of his books the other day, but I didn't have my books with me this winter break, so I couldn't re-read what I had read and catch up. However, I feel Tolkien's writing style is better than Feist's. (I don't argue that Tolkiens books aren't good, if people aren't sure of what I'm trying to say. It's that I don't think his books are the bestest in the world. But, like I said, I lean more towards science fiction anyway)
-MillsJROSS
I kind of have to agree with MillsJROSS and his comparison of WoT and LotR. Most of what Barcik pointed is the foundation of EVERY fantasy novel ever written.
Most of those elements can even be found in Pratchett's works (who is mostly a satirist and wouldn't normally compare with Tolkien. Hmm... I seem to love Pratchett. He's in most of my posts, I see.....). The Monks of Time (or at least one of them, it's been a while since I read about them) have all the answers they need. Susan is a 'princess' of sorts who is taken out of her proper world and launched into the Realm of WhateverItIsThatDeathLivesIn. There are statues along the Ankh. There are always evil forces who reside in some distant villa, and the hero must trek out to destroy it.... I'd keep on going if I thought anybody would really care...
But even those two so called 'minor' points that Mills conceded are rather large 'coincidences'. You can't just take a major hunk of plot and say "whoops! did I steal that and then try to make a million bucks out of it? Accident, I say! ACCIDENT!"
I think WoT has very much borrowed from LotR, but he doesn't IMITATE it. That's what makes it okay. And he's still a good writer. You can't deny that he's done a fabulous job with those books (well, the first few, at least), and to shoot him down because he did what ALL fantasy writers do is just silly.
Quote from: Peter Thomas on Sat 20/12/2003 00:46:15
I kind of have to agree with MillsJROSS and his comparison of WoT and LotR. Most of what Barcik pointed is the foundation of EVERY fantasy novel ever written.
I think that would lead many to say, given the weight that is traditionally given to innovation, that would add alot of points to LOTR on a comparitive scale. Whilst derivatives often refine and in the eyes of purists improve, for many the source provides a greater experience.
However, I'm rather ambivalent on that issue.
What interests me is the accessability of LOTR to even those who have always shunned fantasy and Sword and Sorcery, which is the larger portion of the [largely non reading] public [although that certainly doesn't come out in book sales figures. Those who read fantasy read alot, and vote alot on BBC polls].
I really liked LOTR ROTK a lot. Call me a consumer whore. It's not perfect but what can you expect to do to it that would satisfy the people who would scrutinize it to death and people who generally hate anything that came out of hollywood? I know it had some excessive slow motion in some cases that jackson seems to like using a lot. They left out Christopher Lee (bad!) and scouring of the shire(acceptable). It had too much cg, and the way Legolas slid down the elephant trunk, he might as well yell out "Whoah Dude!" afterwards. If people dont give a shit about the characters... well that's how Tolkien wrote them. I don't hear anyone saying Indiana Jones is lacking character development (even though it is). Does anyone here truthfully believe they can make a better movie version and get the approval of all the scrutinizers? Nothing is perfect. Nothing. Everything is relative -- some people think the frighteners rocked in comparison to lotr. Would michael j fox in lotr (as a hobbit i guess) make it any better?
LOTR was a relatively awesome movie. I give it 4 out of 5 stars. (like it matters what i think)
Fantasy is cool again -- and not just in the realm of pimple faced virgin nerds. I ninja you!
I ased before if the film ranks up with classic epics, but I found an interesting quote from Roger Ebert in his review of the film:
"That it falls a little shy of greatness is perhaps inevitable. The story is just a little too silly to carry the emotional weight of a masterpiece. It is a melancholy fact that while the visionaries of a generation ago, like Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," tried frankly to make films of great consequence, an equally ambitious director like Peter Jackson is aiming more for popular success. The epic fantasy has displaced real contemporary concerns, and audiences are much more interested in Middle Earth than in the world they inhabit."
What does everyone think of that?
I know people will say things like "It's unfair to compare the two cause their different movies."
However, both are grand-scale epics films based upon classic novels.
I agree that both directors struggled to make something ambitious.
However, Ebert is right: Jackson's film is a fantasy, while Coppola's is about the politics of a real event.
Granted, Jackson's trilogy is still magnificant but Coppola struggled to make a thought-provoking film about a depressing period in history.
Any thoughts on this?
I think Ebert's ideas are a bit flawed there. If Middle Earth wasn't more interesting for so many people than the contemporary real world, there'd be little point Tolkien writing about it or Jackson filming it. Ultimately this is popular escapist fiction and people have always loved that. Sure, Copolla released 'Apocalypse Now' in 1979, but two years before that there was 'Star Wars', so it doesn't seem like a transition - people haven't suddenly started liking this kind of film instead of films about real life. There's always going to be this big appeal of fantasy worlds, although I'm not sure any films of this nature will be as popular as the LOTR for a very long time. This is probably the answer you wanted to avoid, but: there's room for both.
There's probably something to be said for the universal values of the LOTR story though, it isn't totally separated from our world, because there's the lessons about friendship and strength of character, which are realised very well in the film. So it does touch on things relevant to people's lives today.
Some people stress that there's an allegory in the story that links it to contemporary issues. Though Tolkien apparently hated his books to be seen as allegory, I think some of those ideas are reasonable. I'm not sure about the idea of it as mirroring World War II, but the explorer who championed it on the BBC's 'Big Read' had a lot to say about its lessons of preserving nature in the modern world. That seems to come through strongly in the book to me, but possibly not in the films.
I think if it "falls short of greatness", it shouldn't be for the reason that it's 'silly'. It's as noble an attempt at film-making as the fantastic 'Apocalypse Now', however fraught with problems we know the latter was. I find it hard to see that it's 'too silly to carry the emotional weight', for me the ROTK film was bursting with emotion, as was this section of the book when I read it. I find the journey you're taken on with the characters very powerful...
I've never really been a fan of movie critics.
Ebert and I, however, usually agree. Though not in the case of the LotR. I think his comparison between LotR and Apocalypse Now is okay given their scale and being based on books. However I don't think 'silly' is acceptable.
The Lord of the Rings is based in a world that noboby on Earth can really relate to 'cause there aren't axe wielding dwarves, or bow firing Elves walking about day to day. It's fantasy ... not reality.
Apocalypse Now was something very much based in this world. With people and technology that most people are used to seeing. So I think more people could ... relate? ... more to the material. Plus, the action in Vietnam was a very controversial subject (much more so in '79 than now) so it was a sensative subject when that film was released.
I can't speak for anybody but myself but when I watch a movie I want to totally escape reality. I want to forget where I'm at and be blown away by the movie. That's how I rate movies ...
I never saw Apocalypse Now in theaters. Had I, I'm sure it would have had a similar effect on me.
When I saw LotR (all three filmes) in the theaters I was under their spell and blown away. The music, special effects, story, acting, direction, cinematography, all of it. Totally pulled me in.
So to me, it's an epic on par with anything ever released. Perhaps the most engaging epic I've ever seen (too early to say definately ... I need to let it all soak in over the next few months) When I can sit down and watch all the extended DVD versions I'll be able to say "Yeah ... this just rocks!" (and I can't wait to do just that!)
Oh well ... in the end I only care about what I think of a movie. I don't care what anybody else (especially critics). Perhaps a bit of ego there, but hey, in the end I'm the one sitting there watching it!!
cheers,
])]v[
I hated Heart of Darkness. Apocalypse Now was a terrible translation of it, at least if you do a side by side comparison. I feel that the story survives, but otherwise it is a different creature.
Also, I find calling Apocalypse Now a classic laughable. It just isn't. Not in the same way that Ben-Hur is. I see it as a classic in the same way that I see Full Metal Jacket as a classic. It is a "classic war film" and nothing more, not a "classic film". I just don't think it works.
Personally, I don't see LOTR in this light either. I don't think it is a classic in the Ben Hur sense. It is a classic "fantasy/sci-fi movie". To compare it to Star Wars is more relevant than Ben Hur.
Ben Hur also appeals on many more levels. It was made in the sixties, if I'm not mistaken. So it has had time to mature and become a classic. The DG vs. Barcik argument on what is classic is just silly. You are both too young to decide what a classic is. I am too young to make that decision. Rickj is probably the only person on these forums that could call something a classic and maybe know what he is talking about. My point isn't that one person has a "right" or can make "decisions" though. My point is these films are too young to call "classics". If a film endures for fifty years, and a vast majority of people say "You haven't seen ... !", then it is a classic. To compare LOTR to a 40 to 50 year old movie or call it a classic only three days after its release is a bit pretentious.
For me, personally, LOTR is a classic. For me to argue that it should be, or any movie regardless of age, should be a classic to someone else...is absurd.
later,
-junc
IMO, there are certain films which are generally seen as 'classics' on some level, after a time. I think the time really varies, there's no set criteria like '50 years', but I think there's a stage at which any amount of naysayers can't take away the reputation of a film as 'classic'.
'Apocalypse Now', to be fair, probably has reached that stage. It hasn't been forgotten amongst other movies of the time. I don't really love to watch 'Ben Hur', but I think it's a classic film. It has a certain status by now.
I really think, my personal judgement this is, that the LOTR films are classics-to-be though. I've been interested in cinema and cinema history long enough to see that they are something special, and personally, I would guess that in 20 years time people will be looking back very fondly on them.
All of this depends on your definition of 'classic' as something individual to each person's judgement, or as a level of a film's reverence and popularity within culture. I see it as the latter really.
At the moment, yes, it is silly to use the word 'classic' for certain though, as it does imply that a film has lasted and stood the test of time. At the moment, we can only look at LOTR as a stunning achievement in filmmaking and acting. Also its been an awesome yearly cinematic event, and I've been very excited to go along and see these 3 films when they've come out.
I don't think it really matters how old you are to declare something a classic. I think it matter, more on how old the movie is. To classify something as classic, it would have to be old enough where we set this time period in it's own genre groupings (ex. film noir, which can still be made today, but is more an early style of film).
Also, I learned several years ago, I can't verify if it's true or not, but before something is considered a "classic," it has to be around at least 25 years. So basically, does this work pass the test of time? We'll have to wait and see.
About, the word "silly." I see no reason why something can't be silly and classic at the same time (Not that I view LOTR as silly, I'm just saying it doesn't mean things can't be classic).
-MillsJROSS
I think I should have mentioned the context of the quote, cause I think a lot of people misundersand.
Ebert wasn't calling the film 'silly', just the story's ability to carry emotional weight (more on this in answer to Darth).
He praised the film very highly and gave it 3 1/2 stars our of 4.
You can read the full review here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-rings17.html
QuoteI think Ebert's ideas are a bit flawed there. If Middle Earth wasn't more interesting for so many people than the contemporary real world, there'd be little point Tolkien writing about it or Jackson filming it. Ultimately this is popular escapist fiction and people have always loved that. Sure, Copolla released 'Apocalypse Now' in 1979, but two years before that there was 'Star Wars', so it doesn't seem like a transition - people haven't suddenly started liking this kind of film instead of films about real life. There's always going to be this big appeal of fantasy worlds, although I'm not sure any films of this nature will be as popular as the LOTR for a very long time. This is probably the answer you wanted to avoid, but: there's room for both.
Then again, keep in mind that Star Wars was a conter-culture film in a similar way to Apocalypse Now.
Both expressed anti-authoritarian attitudes that both directors expressed for major Hollywood studios.
Both Lucas and Coppola worked together to achieve an independence from the studio system.
Also, the same anti-authoritarianism was prevalent in the 60s and 70s.
Also, there was a transition, but you have to look at the 70s decade as a whole.
Consider the 70s started with "real life" films like The French Connection, The Godfather, The Last Picture Show, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, etc.
Now look how the decade moved to more "escapist" blockbusters like Jaws, Star Wars, (and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the ealry 80s) etc.
Notice also how most of the "real life" films at the end of the decade sank financially, like Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Heaven's Gate, etc.
So, yes, there was a transition.
As a side note: George Lucas was originally going to direct Apocalypse Now, while Coppola was just going to produce it.
Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 20/12/2003 15:21:58
However I don't think 'silly' is acceptable.
As I mentioned, Ebert wasn't calling the film 'silly'.
He was calling the story too silly to carry emotional weight.
In other words, I think Ebert was trying to say that a fantasy story like that doesn't have the same emotion as something more realistic, like Apocalypse Now or Lawrence of Arabia, because Apocalypse and Lawrence both were based on real events.
He did praise the same things you did and said that it was a great achievement in filmmaking.
For example, he writes in th enext paragraph:
Still, Jackson's achievement cannot be denied. "Return of the King" is such a crowning achievement, such a visionary use of all the tools of special effects, such a pure spectacle, that it can be enjoyed even by those who have not seen the first two films. Yes, they will be adrift during the early passages of the film's 200 minutes, but to be adrift occasionally during this nine-hour saga comes with the territory; Tolkien's story is so sweeping and Jackson includes so much of it that only devoted students of the Ring can be sure they understand every character, relationship and plot point.Quote from: juncmodule on Sat 20/12/2003 15:23:06
The DG vs. Barcik argument on what is classic is just silly. You are both too young to decide what a classic is.
Bullshit -- Barcik and I have the ability to see films as classic as much as anyone, despite our ages.
Quote from: juncmodule on Sat 20/12/2003 15:23:06
For me, personally, LOTR is a classic. For me to argue that it should be, or any movie regardless of age, should be a classic to someone else...is absurd.
Wait -- first you say LOTR isn't a classic.
Then, you say that no one can judge what is a classic except for RickJ.
And now you're calling LOTR a classic, even thought it contradicts your two previous statements???
Now that's absurd!
So, I hope the context of the quote comes across a bit better -- Remember, Ebert is not calling the entire film 'silly'.
His point was this (I think): the deaths of several Middle Earth inhabitants seems a little inconsequential to the large amount of soldiers and civilians who died in an actual war -- But nevertheless, he continues to write that both films are extraordinary examples of filmmaking.
Hope that clears things up.
The "too silly to carry emotional weight" notion is silly in my mind.
It reminds me of Ebert's review of A.I. I can't recall exactly what he'd said but I believe the gist of it was that it was impossible for him to empathize with an android.
I think its a limitation on Ebert's part to allow himself to be immersed in a movie. Its one thing to say that the film was unsuccessful in creating an emotional resonanance for him, but its another to say that a film that uses science fiction or fantasy elements is too silly to carry any emotional weight.
I ususually find Ebert pretty insightful when reviewing the types of films that DG mentioned from the early 70s (The Last Picture Show, Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces). When it comes to Sci-Fi he's usually looking for an escapist popcorn flick and its the movie's visuals over its themes that he appreciates.
I read the Ebert review and I understand his point.
He did not say it was impossible for him to empathise with an android.
He said that the android (David) had only artificial feelings and thus the film asked us to empathise with such a creation.
And this is also where he faults the film: it never questions the idea of articifial feelings (The whole premise was 'He is not real, but his feelings are") -- and this is a fair question.
I'm sure Ebert does immerse himself in film -- However, a fault is still a fault, and I agree with him as the film (to quote Ebert) "evades its responsibility to deal rigorously with this trait and goes for an ending that wants us to cry".
Perhaps, it's not Ebert that has failed to immerse himself in the film, as he asks some pretty good questions based on the film -- But perhaps, it was the film that failed to engage.
Quote
Quote from: juncmodule on Today at 10:23:06am
The DG vs. Barcik argument on what is classic is just silly. You are both too young to decide what a classic is.
Bullshit -- Barcik and I have the ability to see films as classic as much as anyone, despite our ages.
Quote from: juncmodule on Today at 10:23:06am
For me, personally, LOTR is a classic. For me to argue that it should be, or any movie regardless of age, should be a classic to someone else...is absurd.
Wait -- first you say LOTR isn't a classic.
Then, you say that no one can judge what is a classic except for RickJ.
And now you're calling LOTR a classic, even thought it contradicts your two previous statements???
Now that's absurd!
you missed the point entirely.
Quote
I don't think it really matters how old you are to declare something a classic. I think it matter, more on how old the movie is.
That is what I was trying to say, but obviously it didn't come out the right way.
To call something made in your lifetime a classic is pretentious if you ask me. Perhaps we define classic differently. I consider a classic something that has stood the test of time. If you have only lived one or two decades then how could you say something has stood the test of time? (keeping in mind that I saying that you are trying to declare something that was made during that time is a classic)
I'm not saying you don't have the right to call something a classic. You are taking that WAY out of context. Or perhaps I have worded it incorrectly. Your lives have not been long enough to declare something that took place within them a "classic" to everyone else.
It can be a "classic" to you, same as LOTR is a "classic" to me. That doesn't mean that everyone else must consider it a classic.
Although I already said that...however I am repeating it again...
I agree that saying '50 years' is open to interpretation. Sure, something only 20 years old could be a "classic". I just think it is less likely the younger something is that lots of people will agree. I just see it as at the 50 year point it's kind of hard to argue that something hasn't stood the test of time.
arghhh...I hate posting in topics like this...I usually don't. I give up.
later,
-junc
All three movies: Great for a movie. ***** (5/5)
The book (or books, however you want to see it): ********** squared by the depth of space, cubed by time, and multiplied by infinity.
It was kind of hard to remember the book this time, for it has been two years since I read it, so I couldn't do a really good comparison. Anyways, the movie was well done. I didn't like some of the actors, though, because they didn't fit what I thought that character would be like. The scenery was beautiful.
I re-read the AI review which I should have done before referencing it this thread.
He says: "...it miscalculates in asking us to invest our emotions in a character that is, after all, a machine." I don't think my paraphrase of
"...impossible ... to empathize with an android" is that far off the mark.
For Ebert, the central premise of the film was flawed and so it didn't matter how well it was executed because he would have rather watched a film that focused on the human characters.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sat 20/12/2003 20:07:12
Perhaps, it's not Ebert that has failed to immerse himself in the film, as he asks some pretty good questions based on the film -- But perhaps, it was the film that failed to engage.
I agree with this. Great films have the ability to manipulate our sympathies in ways we would not expect. (Interestingly the 2 examples most prominent in my mind are both Kubrick films). If AI had been a better film, Ebert might have been engaged to make an emotional investment with its machine protagonist.
My point though is that there is some resistance on Ebert's part to fully commit to the film in the first place. A sci-fi or fantasy film has to work harder to make him invest it the characters because there is a stigma of "silly" to it.
A movie doesn't change.
Right now "classic" means that people still enjoy it decades later, but I don't see any reason why its meaning can't be stretched to mean "something that is likely to still be enjoyed decades from now." Maybe we should just come up with a new word and end the confusion. Like... PRECLASSIC.
A new film is often referred to as an "Instant Classic" if it is believed they are likely to still be enjoyed decades from now. I guess if I take that label with a grain of salt, I shouldn't have any issues with it.
From DG:QuoteAs I mentioned, Ebert wasn't calling the film 'silly'.
He was calling the story too silly to carry emotional weight.
After reading the whole article I see now what he meant. And I think I would agree almost completely. However, in my opinion the story isn't silly, but I know what he means by what he said.
The A.I. discussion ...I was super disappointed in AI. I think it asked some interesting questions which inspire you to think (if you're capable of thought!) but on the whole I didn't care for the flick. I think it's just 'cause I don't really care for Haley Joel Osment that much.
What is a classic vs. 'Instant Classic'I think a classic is (should be) based more on individual feelings about a movie. Star Wars is 25 years old and I still watch it and love it. So to me it's a classic. I don't (hold your breath) particularly care for Ben Hur so I don't consider that a classic though many would.
As far as the 'Instant Classic' references to movies. I think I should point out that I saw a reference to
Battlefield Earth as an 'Instant Classic' ...
Do I think LotR is epic? Yes
Do I think it's a classic? We'll see. I'm willing (at this point) to watch it over and over for the next 20 years to find out ;)
])]v[
Quote from: Gonzo on Sat 20/12/2003 14:34:37
about its lessons of preserving nature in the modern world. That seems to come through strongly in the book to me, but possibly not in the films.
I tend to think that element came out stronger in the films than in the books, mainly because it was only in the novels incidently, an unintentional byproduct of the writer's environment he didn't really intend to put there. But the film makers actively tried to stress the point, particularly when depicting the changing of Isengard from a place of gardens to an industrial complex, and the [sometimes too] heavy emphasis on the toppling of trees.
I know I´m going to say something unpopular...
But, having in mind that it is my oppinion, it has no possible discussion. I can say "I don´t like strawberries" and, even if you´re a big fan of strawberries and give me a lot of examples of their splendid propperties, I´ll go on without liking strawberries.
Said this: I didn´t enjoyed the LOTR book... It was difficult to read (To me), too many poems(For me), too songs,too sparing "scenes" (IMHO)... I´ve read this as a poetry book, it´s beautiful, but not off the kind of novels I like. I would really like to read LOTR written by Michael Chrichton.
I don´t really know why I had posted this, I suppose that I just want to give my oppinion... But I know why hadn´t: I don´t want to start a war against me because I see LOTR just as an average book, ok?
KILL HIM!!
naah, its cool farlander. Lemme tell you something...
I dont like LOTR either!
I agree completely Farlander - in fact, I found the LOTR book boring, and I only got to about page 20 before giving up on it. Too much description and not enough action.
On the other hand, I enjoyed the first two films very much - haven't seen the third yet.
Mmm... And in #AGS more people is agreeing... Maybe we´re seeing the "Expectatives effect". If you expect something "spectacular" and you don´t get it, your vision of it gets down.
Of course, people whose expectatives have been accomplished won´t agree...
Lance Farlandstrong: you shall burn in hell!!!11
Nah, i'm a member of secret super-exclusive "I don't like LoTR" club too.
I think movies are quite good though... but nothing earth shaking. Too big&pompous for my taste.
Well each to their own, but I did struggle with the early part of Fellowship when I first read it, I don't think I got through 10 chapters before giving up. It may have been that I was too young, but I think there's a certain amount of effort you have to give in getting into this book.
Eventually I did get further into the story and it became a breeze shortly after that. Some people will never like this kind of stuff, or the way its written, but for me there was one special point in the story where the I realised it had taken hold of me, and I cared about the characters and what was going to happen to them all.
I would say that it isn't really until almost a third of the way through that the story really tightens up and takes you by surprise, and from then on it just gets more and more interesting I think. At that point it becomes as easy as an airport thriller to read IMO.
i haven't seen any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but my dad went and saw Return of the King the other night and said it was non-stop action from beginning to end. So, i guess i will have to see it. Non-stop action is what i like.
BG :)
Quote from: Gonzo on Sun 21/12/2003 00:20:11Well each to their own, but I did struggle with the early part of Fellowship when I first read it, I don't think I got through 10 chapters before giving up. It may have been that I was too young, but I think there's a certain amount of effort you have to give in getting into this book.
Eventually I did get further into the story and it became a breeze shortly after that. Some people will never like this kind of stuff, or the way its written, but for me there was one special point in the story where the I realised it had taken hold of me, and I cared about the characters and what was going to happen to them all.
I would say that it isn't really until almost a third of the way through that the story really tightens up and takes you by surprise, and from then on it just gets more and more interesting I think. At that point it becomes as easy as an airport thriller to read IMO.
I so know what you mean! It took me forever to get past the starting of Fellowship. The part with Tom Bombadil (who I
really didn't miss in the movie) was just so uninteresting to me and it wasn't until they got to Bree, and meet Stryder, that I really got into the books.
Also, as you commented on, Tolkien had a unique (almost old English meets Yoda) style of writing which took me some time to get the hang of. Given that, and a plot that I felt was draggin', I just couldn't get into it. But once it started (the plot) and I got used to his style I flew through the rest of the series.
On a related note ... I found out after the release of tFotR that my father is a huge fan of the series and had read them several times when he was a younger man! He actually went and saw FotR with me. (My father NEVER goes to movies) He knew all the character's names and remembered so much about it, even though he hadn't read them in over 20 years! Talk about a great story that sticks with ya!
I'm glad to see, it isn't just me, who thinks LOTR is the universe. Note, I do not hate the LOTR. I thought it wad a GOOD book, but I don't deem it a great one. I think a lot of people just hop on the bandwagon, so to speak. When it was written, it WAS the best fantasy out there, and I feel Tolkien nudged writers into another direction. So this book still remains a classic, because it was the first, and it still has passed the test of time, I just think there are other better written books out there. I'm not sure I'd like Micheal Chritchton's(sp?) rendition of this book, as his writing style isn't my favourite (he's better at making a good tense story line), but to each their own.
-MillsJROSS
I´m not very into early/mid XXth century books (The time when LOTR was written, I think), but in deffense of Tolkien, I think that he was the first to separate main characters into groups, writing one chapter for one group (Frodo/Gollum/Sam) and the other for the other (Legolas, Aragorn, Pippin, Merry, Gimly...)
That was thrilling, and maybe the only aspect on the book that made it easier to read, because you needed to finish one chapeter to know what was happening to the other group. The funny thing is that when the chapter changes, you were deeply interested in the facts of that very chapter, and all the feelings had to start again. I really liked that, and that was the only thing I´d save, specially because nowadays novelers are using this resource wisely, specially Chrichton, IMO.
Maybe Goldmund, literature student, can give us light about this... Blazej, was Tolkien the first who sepparated characters into groups?
Thanks Chris for saying that you only read 20 pages, I was able to keep to the 50th. I thought I was the only person in the World who wasn´t able to reach to the 100th page! :-[
:-*
None of you will ever reach the West! :P
A little side note: Return of the King hit #3 on the IMDB Top 250 list, and although it is bound to drop a little later, damn, that's one strong entrance.
I sincerely doubt that history of literature took note of the first author who divided chapters between characters, dear Lance... but how about Homer (not Simpson)?
My 2 eurocents:
Putting together in one post Heart of Darkness and LOTR is, in my opinion, laughable.
LOTR isn't a deep book contrary to what some people claim. It isn't any more complicated than an ordinary fairy-tale, it just has some gore in it. I do like it, though, because it appeals to our simple, somewhat infantile fantasies about a different, glorious world, sense of having an aim (The Quest), etc.
Thus, it's as intellectually stimulating as ice-cream, but equally necessary and nice to have from time to time.
As for LOTR movie, I enjoy it when I'm sitting in a theatre, but sadly I remember little once I get back home. I think it's too fast-paced.
Well 'Homer' (or the collective of storytellers he represents) didn't divide his work into chapters at all, as he didn't write it down, his work was part of the oral tradition. The division of the epics into the 24 books was done at a much later date, but of course that predated Tolkien too.
But I think the real point that you missed, was that the division of the 4 *books* in the last 2 volumes of LOTR draws the reader along wanting to know about the other narrative strand. In the first half of The Two Towers, we find out about the fellowship minus Sam and Frodo, and then in the second half it's Sam and Frodo. There's very long periods where we learn nothing about what happens to certain major characters. He doesn't just split narrative strands by chapter. We actually go weeks back in time after Book 3 to see what's happened to Sam/Frodo meanwhile.
This separation creates a lot of suspense I think, and is really unusual, at least for the time it was written. I doubt it was a first, but it was pretty inventive/risky. A class on good writing would probably advise against it - you'd think it's bad practice to forget about two major characters for such a long stretch of story. But Tolkien's instinct paid off there I think, it works a treat.
I'm not sure when the last time you read LOTR was Goldmund, but it is more deep than a fairy tale, at the very very least. A fairy tale is usually a simple, short children's fable, like Hansel & Gretel. LOTR is a massively detailed world with a huge cast of characters and an epic storyline.
I think we're having a collision of depth of meaining and depth of detail. Whilst the second is certainly true, Goldmund is commenting on a lack of the former, and that was never intended to be there anyway.
As for the division, it's just one of many decisions made in the writing of the book that look rather bizaare from the perspective of those who have Learnt To Write. The description of the flooding of Isengard in flashback being another. The fact that several chapters are given to a diversion in the old forest, yet more pivotal events such as the walks of the dead or the freeing of Theoden are told in more mythological prose and speed by in pages. It all seems to point to the fact that he was writing here, as with all his writing, for himself.
I don't think the division into the two strories was one made on the basis of structure. As only the very beginning and very end were preconcieved, the large body of plot developed as it was written, so I tend to think that he chose to follow the remainder of the fellowship for 10 chapters merely because he had little idea as to what would happen to Sam and Frodo.
And all this I find funny.
I also agree that it is like a simple fairytale.
William Goldman used the term "comic book movies" to describe them -- i.e. a hero struggles against evil and ultimately triumphs.
I don't think LOTR contains any moral ambiguity and the film makes pretty clear who is a hero and who is a villian, while in retrospect a film like Mystic River is shrouded in moral ambiguity.
Don't get me wrong cause, like William Goldman, I like comic book movies.
However, I think some people treat the LOTR trilogy as something more than it should be.
What LOTR is: extremely immersive, spectacular entertainment. It's very highly detailed, state of the art, and thousands of hours were put into it by the creators. It doesn't need any more story than it already has. What it has is a chunk out of Middle Earth's imaginary history that lends itself to an engaging storyline which lends itself to many interesting characters and situations. The underlying gist of the story is simple; everything else, save for maybe the depth of the characters, is vastly detailed and masterfully illustrated in the films.
And it's a perfect example of it was dreamed to be. I can't wait to see the third film.
I think that the moment where Frodo decided to use the ring to get all the powers of Sauron and then he killed Gandalf once and for all was very good.
Spoiler
Dudes, I was only kidding!
Well I finally watched it last night, so now with the film trilogy planted firmly under my belt, and the loose fitting garb of the trilogy read for the first time over 16 years ago I have to say this....
Nitpicking and everything put aside, this was a well made movie (and trilogy).
For those that had a hard time with the books, the movies could make some things more clear to them, for those that havent read it at all, they may be inspired to read the books. For others, it was just another movie in a sea of movies.
Personally, I read the books, I remembered the major plot points characters, and the like. I remembered how I envisioned the world. It was great. However, when I finally got to see it on film, that world was so much better to me. No, this is not an insight to my imagination, but ...
Spoiler
When the swarms of the ghost armies overran the battle field, and at one point in the movie where they swarmed over the elephant beasts taking them down I acutally said out loud Holy Shit
I just never saw it like that, at the time of being 10 years old and reading the books, the image I percieved was grand, but watching it last night seemed epic to me.
When I go to the movies, I don't go looking for impurities, bad cuts, cg elements badly placed, looking for those things means you missed the movie (like staring at a forest for one sickly elm tree and missing the 500 year old redwoods towering above it). The only place where it poped out at me was legolas and the "trunk surfing" but it was forgotten when the smartass dwarf has his one thing to say about that... (LOL)
Jackson kept the parts that needed to be kept and removed those that werent as important, he did the best he could to keep the spirit of the story, while keeping it easy enough for the most ignorant of middle earth to comprehend....
In the end... Just like i still watch the starwars trilogy today I will be watching the LotR trilogy in 2033.
Ok, somebody needs to make the Hobbit now...
Quote from: Alynn on Mon 22/12/2003 20:26:25
Ok, somebody needs to make the Hobbit now...
Peter Jackson promised to do it one day. I am sure funding won't prove to be a problem.
Quote from: Goldmund on Sun 21/12/2003 22:47:26
I sincerely doubt that history of literature took note of the first author who divided chapters between characters, dear Lance... but how about Homer (not Simpson)?
I was only mistaked by 2,500 years, not much... ;D
Greeting from Lorena and me, to Dominika and you!
Edit: I have just seen the movie... Enjoyable as an entertainment, but IMHO the second was better.
I´ve read that Remixor preffers the "Community". It was a surprise when I read it, because it was the one with less action, but taking the view back, I must say that I´m closer to that oppinion than before... The second and the third have a lot of fights and not a moment for resting. I´d put them together in the same bag, so, the first one is special, IMO.
I just saw it. I got out of the theatre only about an hour ago, and I can't remember a lot of the second half. Because I was STUPID and bought a large pop, and drank most of it during the previews. Three and a half hours and no intermission? AAAAAARGH!!!
I'm another one of those ones who didn't like the books. I zoomed through them because my Dad claimed it would take me three months to read them (took me six days, and I won a $10 bet!). But because I read them so fast, I don't remember a lot.
Parts I forgot:
Spoiler
The ghost army
The steward of Gondor lighting himself on fire
Samwise getting married.
As for the rest... wow. Just... wow.
I finally got to see it, I guess most people have seen it by now, it only came out here on boxing day and I broke my tradition and saw it the day after.
I must say, I wasn't as excited about going to see it as the others, but I guess it's just soooo loooong between them, that the excitement wore off a couple of years ago.
I did enjoy it, but I thought they left out some important bits and didn't emphasize other bits I thought were important to me. But hey, it's a movie and not the book, I do realise that.
here's some spoilers to describe some of my thoughts:
Spoiler
note: it's been I while since I read it so I may be wrong about some things, and some names, spelling etc
At the end of the second book they were in shalob's lair, but it was well into the third movie when they decided to insert that part.
I though Faramir's dad, can't remember his name, actually killed himself behind the door, not by Mithrandir, though I could be wrong, but that's the way I remember it.
When Eowyn killed the head Nazgul there was a bright light that shot up into the air or something which was mentioned in three seperate parts of the 3rd book, it was a land mark point that linked to where the different parties were positioned at the time, I thought the movie didn't highlight the importance of that event.
The order of events was changed but it was probably not that bad a thing cause the book was written in seperate chapters following the different characters paths and then going back to do other characters, and in the sense of a movie I think it worked well the way they did it.
The end of the movie was a bit drawn out and a bit girly, but not nearly as much as the book. (eg. the destruction of the ring was about halfway through book 3 if that)
I was very dissapointed that Sauraman was left out in the third part cause it was really important to know what happened on the journey home and the path of destruction leading all the way back to the shire, and finding out that that bloke was Sauraman. (not that you didn't know it was him anyway)
They did slightly brush on the fact that Eowyn eventually fell for Faramir, for about 2 secs, if you blinked you missed it.
That's just a taste of my thoughts from the 3rd part, It's pointless to go on cause the movie isn't the book, but some bits could have been better.
I've already mentioned other thoughts last year so I won't go back there.
Tom Bombadil, woops!
Definately worth seeing, and I'm sure I'll get the box set next xmas
Tim - what you said about Faramir and Eowyn is true ... how they barely touched on the romance between the two of them. In 1 way I liked that ... because it's something only those of us who read the book would pick up on (mostly) and in another way I don't like it because it kind of leaves those who don't know feeling like Aragorn just broke her heart.
I don't like lack of resolution in movies ... so had I not read the books I would be like, "Well what about Eowyn? That King sure is a wanker!" (Although they way they shared that look at the end (about 2 seconds as you said) I might have guessed at it. The book fleshed out their involvement with one another a lot more than the movie did.
Any way ... glad you liked it!
])]v[