- Time
- Post link
Lord of the Rings...what's the deal?
- Time
- Post link
I love the Lotr movies and books, though I think the books are rife with problematic elements. Tolkien didn't really understand anything about structure or emphasis or pacing or foreshadowing, but for whatever reason the story works nonetheless. All things considered I think Jackson has done about as good a job imaginable with the material (TTT aside) and shaped together a truly awesome series of movies.
That said, I'm surprised that audiences have connected with these movies so much, I figured it would just be fans of the books who would like them, and even then I figured many of the purest would be turned away.
However i don;'t see how you can say that the FX tell the story, these films are brilliantly acted and the dialogue is superb for the most part, I would say most of my favorite moments are not FX moments, and my favorite battle remains the AMon Her battle at the end of fellowship, which has no FX.
But I do agree that LOTR is not for everyone, and I'm puzzled on how it has done so well as it doesn;t seem like the sort of thing most people would like.
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
1. The books are older than our parents and everyone has heard of them in some way, shape, or form.
2. It was well marketed and not overmarketed (read: The Hulk)
3. The production process has been well documented and without the typical sorts of problematic reporting that came with say Titanic or the Matrix sequels. People knew what was going on and they never really heard anything negative about the whole process.
4. The CGI do a great job in the story. I agree they do not tell the whole story like some people claim they do or like the SW PT movies have done, but they are a very important element in the popularity. I think the popularity of Gollum is what's continuing to bring people in for ROTK. Many may have missed him the first time around and now, after seeing his "acceptance" at the MTV Video Awards, they were completely entranced and want to see him on the big screen finally. MTV may suck as a whole, but you cannot deny it's power over Young America and the rest of the world.
5. Sex appeal... Liv Tyler and Miranda Otto for the guys (and not-so-straight women) and Viggo Mortenson and Orlando Bloom for the women (and not-so-straight guys). A lot can be said for having good looking people in a movie. Even if they are not that well known like Otto, Mortenson, and Bloom were before the release. Mortenson is known as an actor but he was never a "sex symbol" per se. If anything, he was a rather greasy looking kind of guy. But, Jackson redid a lot of the story to allow for a female-appeal love triangle with Arwen, Eowyn, and Aragorn and it helped immensely to bring in women.
6. A multinational cast of epic proportions. Brought in people of all cultures because they want to see some of their fellow kinsmen. Unlike the Harry Potter films whose only non-UKer was Verne Troyer (Mini ME in a cameo), these have the appeal of having people from around the world cast in it.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
But like I said these are minor things, and as a whole the trilogy works in a spectacular fashion.
Quote
But, Jackson redid a lot of the story to allow for a female-appeal love triangle with Arwen, Eowyn, and Aragorn and it helped immensely to bring in women.
I think this is a really valid point, because what I think is ultimately the key to the trilogies success is the female appeal. The books have none, there is no real female presence at all. Its very male, and in many ways very homoerotic (see also the wonderful Master and Commander) But something I didn't count on was that women would swoon over Aragorn and Legolas the way they have. Infact its been my observation that in many instances the female fans now outnumber the male ones.
But I think more importantly on this note, what really helped the films was that 2 of the three writers were women. Smart women. and it gives this whole undercurrent of emotion and feminity to the films and not in a bad way. Opening the first film with Cate Blanchetts voice pretty much sets the tone throughout. And in all the DVD materials I'm always impressed with Phillpa Boyens who seems the very model of a smart artistic women with a stong understanding of filmmaking and good story telling.
Quote
" A multinational cast of epic proportions. Brought in people of all cultures because they want to see some of their fellow kinsmen. Unlike the Harry Potter films whose only non-UKer was Verne Troyer (Mini ME in a cameo), these have the appeal of having people from around the world cast in it.
true however its still pretty brit oriented, there are a few americans, and the rest are Aussies and New Zealanders. I think actually the main problem (and this could not really be helped while remaining true to the source material) is that there are no characters of colour or any real diverse ethnicity. There isn't much appeal for black audiences, its a very white story filled with very white characters. Though I'm glad the at PJ managed to keep in the Easterlings and Southerns while managing to move far enough away from the Asian and Arab stereotypes which they obviously are meant to be in the books.
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Rebel Scumb
Its very male, and in many ways very homoerotic (see also the wonderful Master and Commander) But something I didn't count on was that women would swoon over Aragorn and Legolas the way they have. Infact its been my observation that in many instances the female fans now outnumber the male ones.
I think actually the main problem (and this could not really be helped while remaining true to the source material) is that there are no characters of colour or any real diverse ethnicity. There isn't much appeal for black audiences, its a very white story filled with very white characters. Though I'm glad the at PJ managed to keep in the Easterlings and Southerns while managing to move far enough away from the Asian and Arab stereotypes which they obviously are meant to be in the books.
Both very valid points, and both products of Tolkien's upbringing. My parents were both born and raised in post-WWII England, when the education system that taught Tolkien was still very much in place. Racism at the time was very casual, and the sexes were almost always segregated for educational purposes, except for those who couldn't afford it and were taught in a lesser manner.
Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.
- Time
- Post link
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
another point that you guys brought about was about the appeal the movie had.part was due to the fact that every one has heard of how good the books were, there fore every one went to see the first one however, i think the movies really took off because the emotion that was felt in the movies where so great. ( i am not the kind of person that cries when watching movies, and there were parts in the trilogy where i could bearly breath because the lump in my throut was so big. this emotion captured the viewers when they went to see the fellowship.) this emotion hooked the people. so to sum up ppl went to the movie cus they had heard of lotr and were then hooked by the emotion that the movies had.
rebel the battle of helms deep was the best of the trilogy. Question: Wasn't the battle on pelenoir feild suposed to be in what seem like an eternal night? If it had been at night it would have been just as good as the battle of pelenoir feilds.
i think that is all for now.
- Time
- Post link
I liked helms deep a lot, but the Amon Her battle remains the most perfect battle IMHO. Its up there with the hoth battle in ESB. Its a perfect blend of music, acting, scenery and action. And not an effect in sight so it all feels completely believable (not that the LOTR FX aren't awesome) and it all ends with the death of Boromir which is one of the best screen deaths of all time.
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
I used to play swords or guns the same way, me and a handful of friends running around the neighborhood. I was the same with G.I.Joes. Always used my half dozen faves in a battle instead of all of them.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
i agree that boromirs death was one of the best i have ever seen.
- Time
- Post link
I can't wait to see the EE and hopefully see the Aftermath of Isengard scene done right.
"I wish my lawn was emo so it would cut itself." -sybeman
"You know, putting animals in the microwave is not a good idea. I had to learn that one the hard way." -seanwookie
- Time
- Post link
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Did anyone else who saw ROTK notice the sudden overreliance on rear shots of Hobbits walking with humans/wizards/elves and notice how awkwardly they were shot? Especially with regards to all the scenes of Pippen with Gandalf. You can tell it's a stand in and it just doesn't look right. Almost like PJ was too ashamed to show the two together from the front. I know that it's easier from the back because you can use a stand in as opposed to paying for the SFX to "shrink" Billy Boyd. But instead of using this awkward shot, why not just eliminate it entirely and just cut back and forth to close ups of Gandalf and Pippen as the move, for example, into Denethor's throne room?
I would say quite the opposite Bossk. ROTK was the first of the trilogy where i noticed a lot of composite work done as compared to the other two films, with less reliance on scale doubles.
I'm embarrassed to admit it never occured to me when I saw FOTR that they would use scale doubles and could not for the life of me figure out how they achieved some of the shots they did (ie Pippin and Merry tackle Boromir, Frodo leaps into the cart to hug Gandalf)
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
I know I am pissing a lot of people off, I'm sorry. But, I DON'T GET IT!
- Time
- Post link
I agree with you that a movie should be able to stand alone without supplemental multimedia to aid in the understanding of it. Maybe that's why I hate Mulholland Drive so much. It made absolutely no sense and everyone I talked to about it said that there was some online source that helps you understand it. What kind of BS movie requires you to do outside reading to understand it? Load of crap. Fortunately, LOTR was not like that. I saw FOTR before reading anything and I followed it just fine.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
I feel these movies do stand alone and you do not need to read the books. It does help for the sake of comparison or supplemental information, but there is absolutely no need to read them to know what's going on.
I don't fully agree, in that I've shown the movie to some people who had not read the books and they found alot of the politics and cultures to be a bit confusing and hard to absorb on first viewing. My wife was a bit confused by some of it but upon repeat viewings has gained a strong udnerstanding of middle earth (what is it in the middle of?????)
I do think the movies stand on their own, but I also think some stuff is a bit confusing for those unfamiliar with the source material.
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
They digitally shrunk them. Those shots don't bother me (referring to Frodo leaping in cart, Merry and Pippen tackling Boromir, etc.).
No those are all scale double shots.
Funny thing is, if I had made these movies, I would of just cast short people as the hobbits.
And I'm a monkey, in a long line of kings.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Rebel Scumb
I don't fully agree, in that I've shown the movie to some people who had not read the books and they found alot of the politics and cultures to be a bit confusing and hard to absorb on first viewing. My wife was a bit confused by some of it but upon repeat viewings has gained a strong udnerstanding of middle earth (what is it in the middle of?????)
I do think the movies stand on their own, but I also think some stuff is a bit confusing for those unfamiliar with the source material.
I had no problem with them when I went in knowing nothing about FOTR. I have several friends who went in blind as well and have had no problem whatsoever. Friends who have no grasp of the genre or the style.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com