One Film to Rule Them All!

Great post, Gardner. And all quite true. I do think the loss of Saruman in the third film--to be recitified on DVD, I hope--was a great one, but we shall see what Jackson and his people do on the home vid front to make up for it...a lot, I hope, I missed him more than anything else. And I agree, I think they really flubbed the Faramir character, more important to the story than they apparently believed.


ED

 

I disagree. I don't think that they "flubbed" Faramir's character. He's a very generic character in the book. He captures Frodo and Sam. they tell him their quest, he let's the go. That's about it for that character. The character at least has some depth now in the film version.

Sean

 

He wasn't making a funny - he was making a point. He responded to a post that felt box office receipts = Best Picture by noting that this doesn't happen often. He could support that by noting that in the Nineties, only two flicks that were their year's biggest grossers won BP: "Titanic" and "Forrest Gump". (And "Gump" wasn't even the year's biggest hit: it only made a little more than "The Lion King", but it was clear that the Disney effort sold more tickets - it lost revenue because it had so many more child-priced seats.) In the Eighties, only "Rain Man" won BP and topped the BO, and in the Seventies, it was just "Rocky" and "The Godfather". "ROTK" makes it six BO/BP winners in the last 30+ years - not exactly a great predictor, is it?

Dunno where you saw the flicks, but I recall no "groans" or joking. If everyone thinks so little of the "Star Wars" movies, why a) did they sell so many tickets for those SE versions, and b) why are so many people so excited about the DVDs? Honestly, I think you're projecting your own emotions about these movies onto others. The "Star Wars" flicks remain incredibly loved and popular, and the SEs helped bring them to a new audience. Kids too young to see them the first time loved them - they certainly didn't think they were too cheesy.

Only time will tell how folks greet the "LOTR" flicks in 20 years, but I agree with one thing: they'll merit the same attention currently given to the "SW' movies. However, I mean that as a compliment, since I see the original "SW" trilogy as maintaining a very positive reputation and fan base - other than your post, I've not heard anyone bemoaning their "cheesiness"...

 

Well, having read all of the widely varying analysis of LoTR:RoTK in this thread I'll try to keep my response concise. For those who haven't seen the films, rent the DVDs and try to hang in there with them even if you have a dislike of fantasy. BTW, even at the greater length it would pay to watch the extended versions; it isn't necessary to watch them all at one time and you might want to wait on the 3rd film until it's extended cut comes out on DVD. I'm not saying that you will like them, because not everyone appreciates Tolkien, but keep this in mind: not everybody likes golf either, but those who walk the course in a leisurely fashion seem to know something that the rest of us don't, so I try not to knock the sport even though it takes someone like Tiger Woods to bring a little energy to it.

As for the criticism of the acting, well, I have to disagree with those who found it wanting. The acting was very sincere, warm, simple and somewhat wistful in it's romanticism, but I think this was a stylistic choice in keeping with Peter Jackson's evisaging of Tolkien's epic tale; I never felt that any of the actors were trying to achieve an overpowering level of perfomance (i.e., eat scenery, per se). Instead, Tolkien's atmospheric settings enriched the tale and moved the story along; it carried the characters, who were never fully in control of events except in the manner of sacrificing themselves to the greater story.

Also, those in doubt of the classic nature of these films should consider this: the ONLY elements of these films likely to become dated are, to a marginal degree, the special effects (i.e., CGI), which will only improve over time. Tolkien's trilogy has already proven itself to be an undisputed classic and while the films must be viewed with differing criteria from the books, they are much less likely to suffer the kind of "dating" so painfully evident in science fiction films (i.e., SF relies heavily on scientific probability, until proven wrong; then it becimes quaint). The unfair advantage fantasy has over other forms of storytelling is that it's already based on myth. That which is alluded to through allegory, but doesn't exist in any known reality save it's creator's imagination cannot be easily disposed of through scientific probability. It's the age old debate over the difference between science (fact) and belief (religion); Han Solo misrepresenting parsects as a unit of time in the original Star Wars film falls under the category of the former, Gandalf confronting and eventually defeating the Balrog in the abyss beneath the mines of Moria and returning falls under the latter.

In short, my prediction is that these films will become revered classics and live on, unscathed by time, for many generations; Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien's Ring trilogy will, in my estimation, become a landmark of popular cinema to stand along side of other grand scale epics (historical & novel) such as Laurence if Arabia, Gone With the Wind, Doctor Zhivago, How the West Was Won, Abel Ganz's Napolean, Bridge Over the River Kwai, etc.

Of course, this is just one man's opinion; I believe it to be a well informed opinion, but other's mileage may vary.


Cat

 

If somone think STAR WARS is great cinema, then I do not doubt that they will think LORD OF THE RINGS is great cinema. You seem to be equating great popularity with great quality, which was sort of the point of my original post.

 

I like the Original Trilogy... I like it a lot.

But there's no way in heaven or earth a kid these days will watch ANH, ESB, or ROTJ without getting bored, fast forwarding through the boring parts, or anything else. I have 6 cousins, aged 11 and below, and everyone believes Star Wars to be boring.

I do agree - I might like the movies because I saw them as a kid...

 

No, I'm not. I frigging hate "The Grinch" movie, and it was a huge hit. I've never said that something popular must be good.

You seem to equate great popularity with a LACK of quality, however. And you know what? I DO think "Star Wars" and "LOTR" are great cinema. They remind us why we love movies - they exciting, passionate, and a hell of a lot of fun. I get the feeling you regard "great cinema" as something deep, dour, and "meaningful". It's not. A popcorn flick can be "great cinema" because it uses the medium very well. "Star Wars" and "LOTR" use the medium extremely well.

I disagree with your assessment. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Last year I dated a woman with a seven-year-old son. He'd watched the original trilogy so many times he wore out the tapes! (And not because he always fast-forwarded through "the boring parts".)

In addition, I collect "Star Wars" figures, so I spent a lot of time in toy stores when the SEs hit the screens in 1997. I saw LOTS and LOTS of kids in there buying figures - clearly they really liked the old movies.

I won't claim that these movies mean as much to kids today as they did 25 years ago, but they definitely have a big fanbase of younger types...

Thank you!

 

We agree to disagree, then. I've yet to find any kid who likes Star Wars (and if anecdotal evidence doesn't count, well...). The new trilogy made things worse - now they *laugh* about the whole deal!

On the other hand, Harry Potter, LOTR... those are films kids nowadays relate to. And they probably will in 20 years' time. I guess.

 

Nope. Count me in that group as well.

 

It's not that anecdotal evidence doesn't COUNT, but it doesn't PROVE anything. For every example you mention about kids who dislike "Star Wars", I can mention one who does. Like I mentioned, the ex's son adored the OT AND the new flicks, and as a toy collector, I saw tons of kids pick up the figures. This no more proves my hypothesis than your observations prove yours.

Sure do seem to be a lot of kids in the theaters when I've gone to see the OT and the prequels, though. If you see Ep 3 next year, stand by the door and ID all who enter, make a chart, and we'll see how it works out...

 

I'm right there with you. And so is my seven year old son who thinks the original Star Wars is a blast.

-BZync

 

No your not. Not a single frame.Never read the book either.

 

You've got something to look forward to!! It's hard to imagine anything more *epic*.