Rant: on "Lord of the Rings"
I saw all of the movies in the cinema, and, after the first one, my friends convinced me to read the book(s). I confess, I was never really gripped by either book or movie.
That fact is ancillary to the main point here, though, which involves the popularity of the series. That is, how can a fantasy movie with border-line acting, pallid one-liners, and an extremely contrived plot (which, by the way, is a requisite for any fantasy movie, so it's more of a criterion than an insult), do so well as a popular item and an award winner?
I will say that I am big fan of the sci-fi genre, and not so much the fantasy genre, but the two are linked at the hip. Perhaps I am wrong, but the similarities between "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" are evident, and the comparison partly answers my question. But the difference is that when watching Lord of the Rings a second time, I was completely bored and annoyed with the over-emotional moments, and not amused by the cheesy bits. For example, there's a bit where an orc leader gets a close up to say, "The time of man has ended, the time of orc has begun," which reminds me intensely of a similar close-up in "Army of Darkness."
I am 100% sure that the Lord of the Rings movies will not enjoy the same pop logevity that Star Wars continues to, but am still surprised that a less-elegant, and dare I say less sexy, iteration of the good-vs-evil story formula managed to do so well at winning awards, especially given the tradition of the award judges to pan anything fantasy or sci-fi.
That fact is ancillary to the main point here, though, which involves the popularity of the series. That is, how can a fantasy movie with border-line acting, pallid one-liners, and an extremely contrived plot (which, by the way, is a requisite for any fantasy movie, so it's more of a criterion than an insult), do so well as a popular item and an award winner?
I will say that I am big fan of the sci-fi genre, and not so much the fantasy genre, but the two are linked at the hip. Perhaps I am wrong, but the similarities between "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" are evident, and the comparison partly answers my question. But the difference is that when watching Lord of the Rings a second time, I was completely bored and annoyed with the over-emotional moments, and not amused by the cheesy bits. For example, there's a bit where an orc leader gets a close up to say, "The time of man has ended, the time of orc has begun," which reminds me intensely of a similar close-up in "Army of Darkness."
I am 100% sure that the Lord of the Rings movies will not enjoy the same pop logevity that Star Wars continues to, but am still surprised that a less-elegant, and dare I say less sexy, iteration of the good-vs-evil story formula managed to do so well at winning awards, especially given the tradition of the award judges to pan anything fantasy or sci-fi.
Comments
Lord of the rings is a classic. It had been elected book of the century by a commitee of readers. Heroic fantasy as we knows is born with LOTR. Heroic fantasy is a mix, of middle age stuff and magic. If you are not sensitive to one or another, there isn't any chance that you will be interested by such book.
I read the book several years ago, and I was fascinated by the plot, and the epic tone of the story.
The movie is very respecteful of the book, and that's why he deserve sucess.
Star War is certainly more manichean than LOTR. I loved the three first episodes, but was disapointed especially by the fourth, the fifth was better.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
...
For example, there's a bit where an orc leader gets a close up to say, "The time of man has ended, the time of orc has begun," which reminds me intensely of a similar close-up in "Army of Darkness."
...
Maybe not done well but part of the point of the entire Lord of the Rings was that the time of the elves was ending and it was the dawn of man. I guess every race was trying to make it their time? Try to pack in a whole lot of plot in one line?
Originally posted by Scott
I have some doubt about that.
doubt about ?
1.sw
2.lotr
3.erased by groverat (the mean 'ole mod)
I have however read the book over 20 times and still marvel how much information Tolkein placed in them while still making it readable and enjoyable.
As for Star Wars I am the opposite. Never read the books but seen the movies.
Go figure.
And for the "your point" people:
No point
Originally posted by madmax559
doubt about ?
1.sw
2.lotr
3.LOL! - PO-TAY-TOES! - groverat
Read the first sentence of the post just above my reply.
Anyway, against my better judgement, a friend who loves everything Tolkein, talked me into seeing the first LoTR. I thought beforehand, oh god it's going to be an endless saga of hobbits journeying and battling, journeying and battling, on and on and frickin' on. Which, of course, it was. I was bored to tears after the first half hour and I knew how long it went for. Worst experience I've had at the movies (except in reverse) since a (different) friend grabs me in Eraserhead just after the "baby" appears and says "Come on we've got to go, I can't handle this". Huh? Noooooooo! This is great stuff! Chester is dragged from the cinema leaving scratch marks on the chair arms to which she valiantly but unsuccessfully tried to cling.
But I got to see it eventually. In the case of LoTR, being the loyal type, I grimly sat through the whole thing and now I can never expunge it from my memory. I have not and will not see the others. One was more than enough.
I'm a fan of SF too but other than the good vs evil thing, I really don't get the connection with fantasy. When I'm in bookshops and the fantasy and SF are always put together (sometimes mixed in with each other, ugh!) I constantly ask myself, why is this fantasy crap with the sci fi? SF often has a social commentary which fantasy never does. Think "Farenheit 451" or Ursula Le Guinn's "The Dispossessed". Hell even Star Trek has social commentary. And SF has a relationship to the present and the real. SF often eventually becomes true or a version of it does.
If it counts as fantasy though, I will give a hats off to the Gormenghast books. Gothic fantasy? But that's more because of the insight they give into Mervyn Peake's weird mind than anything else. Besides, there are no elves in it or any of that crap. And I liked The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe series as a kid but at least CS Lewis had the decency to make them allegorical.
As for book of the century.....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. Better than Ulysses, hell better than anything by Joyce, Catcher in the Rye, On the Road, Lolita, Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, Sons and Lovers, 1984, Slaughterhouse 5, Voss? I don't think so.
LoTR, both books and movie, are a boring, tedious, predictable pile of crap and I entirely fail to understand what people see in them.
OK, I'm done.
I bring up Star Wars because it, like "The Lord of the Rings" has done very well as a franchise, and seems to have a fairly wide audience. And for all of you block heads who can't detect "the point," it's that Star Wars is a better movie series than "Lord of the Rings," and that I fail to see how the general public can put up with all of the ridiculous intricasies in Lord of the Ring, be they a gamut of creatures, magical incantations, or other entirely foolish events while balking at the mere mention of warp drives and the other, currently imaginary fixations of most science fiction.
And lastly, Star Trek II was a better movie than all of the above. There, I said it. In the hands of a thoughful author, the same concept could have been a terrific novel as well.
But I loved the books as a kid...
Why weren't the big eagles used to help hairy-big-feet drop the ring in the volcano? Bahhhhh...
Why weren't the big eagles used to help hairy-big-feet drop the ring in the volcano? Bahhhhh...
It's covered in the book.
I read the books and watched the movies. I enjoyed both. Of course the books are deeper in scope and storyline. I think the books are a difficult read because Tolkien enjoyed writing in such a descriptive narrative.
I really enjoyed the conversation in the books. Frodo was far more eloquent (I loved his first meeting with Faramir). Movies are dumbed down thus you get the easy one liners and the snarling and growling. Blame it on a society that is lowest common denominator.
As for Star Wars I really like the first two. ESB is probably the best sequel out there but RotJ starts the downward spiral. I think LOTR will remain a classic for years to come. The acting couldn't be more wooden than "any" of the SW flicks.
Not everyone is going to "feel" the series or the books.
characters its difficult to care about and false climaxes where 'its just us against the forces of evil'..well just us and all of them and them and them and don't forget the trees, they'll help too... and 'this will be the final battle'..until the next one and the next one.
The films reminded me of the old Saturday morning cinema where streams of new characters padded the slim plots and where constant dramatic climaxes caused irrational plot twists.
The only glimmer of hope for the whole sorry series was that the doe-eyed twerp might be brutally and graphically killed.
But it's OK splinemodel, you're allowed to not like it.
Originally posted by madmax559
and your point is ?
He's absolutely right" Lord of the Rings is Kitschy corn-ball of the highest/low type . . .
it will not last as long as its hype would have you think . . . very soon people are going to notice more and more how bad the acting is, how absolutely cheesball the sickening emotions are, the idiotic nearly fascist kitsch of the homo-eroticism twixt all the little boys . . . I mean hobbits while at Rivendell . . . all etc etc etc . .
But even with all that said . . . I really like the first movie when I first saw it . . . and even the second time, after giving myself permision to just indulge in the sacchrine Thomas Kincaid-like over-the-top schmaltz . . . I still enjoyed it
But really: bad acting, bad music (the Irish lilty garbage while with the Hobbits) the incredibly terrible editing!! non-stop, way too fast, the camera that never ever stops moving like some damn endless car-commercial . . . that terrible constant Golden-Hour glowing light in all the Hallmark postcard scenes!!! and I could really go on and on!!!
. . . . but the worst is that idiotic Elf!!! his inane vacuous staring in the 'deep' distance!!! argh!!
Originally posted by crazychester
As for book of the century.....AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. Better than Ulysses, hell better than anything by Joyce, Catcher in the Rye, On the Road, Lolita, Grapes of Wrath, To Kill a Mockingbird, Sons and Lovers, 1984, Slaughterhouse 5, Voss? I don't think so.
LoTR, both books and movie, are a boring, tedious, predictable pile of crap and I entirely fail to understand what people see in them.
OK, I'm done.
Did you say something positive about Joyce?!?!
ahh . . . yer after my heart their lass?!?!
but anyway . . .
Back to the ranting: Gandalf!!!!
Man, the acting, from that famed (whatever His name is) is truly terrible: its as if he is laughing at each line as if he is thinking to mimself every second: : my, this is terrible. Each line is garbage . . . watch how badly I'll deliver the next line . . and this Jackson fellow just eats it up . . Hah!"
--the books have a real charm however, because you can tell that they are really personal and that he cared deeply for the world that he created . .
But manOman . . . one more sweeping panorama shot cut to a few guys in tin helmets pretending to be fierce horsemen . . . ugh . .
Oh well . . . I'll probably see each movie at least one time again . . .after all, my daughter is getting older and I'm sure its just part of the canon now . . like Star Wars (charm entirely over-my-head here too), Wizard of Oz and other 'Family' movies . . .
So i'm sure it has it's merits as adaptions of the book, but if for nothing else the really bad acting (mainly by the hobbits, but also by the rest of the 'gang') will keep this from being a classic.