LOTR: Return of the King

[evilspacefart]

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!

[DGMacphee]

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?

[Gonzo]

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...

[Darth Mandarb]

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[

[juncmodule]

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

[Gonzo]

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.

[MillsJROSS]

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

[DGMacphee]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Quintaros]

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.

[DGMacphee]

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.

[juncmodule]

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.

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

[Alexis Vale]

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.

[Quintaros]

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.

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.

[Trapezoid]

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.

[Quintaros]

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.

[Darth Mandarb]

From DG:

As 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[

[Las Naranjas]

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.

[Nacho]

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?

[Matt Brown]

KILL HIM!!

naah, its cool farlander. Lemme tell you something...

I dont like LOTR either!

[Pumaman]

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.