Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by StarWars2015, Feb 18, 2013.
What? Is this for real?
I can see this debate going absolutely nowhere. My personal opinion is that the LOTR movies were not nearly as good as many claimed and the prequels were not nearly as bad. They really are quite different anyway.
I happen to prefer the SW movies, flaws and all.
I will say this again and again: I think Jackson is overrated. He had the benefit of great source material to work from, while Lucas started from scratch. This really should be considered before trashing Lucas.
I think many fans and the media in general (not fans here on these boards generally) have been way too hard on Lucas. Its no wonder he sold the franchise. Its my belief that many SW fans are essentially bullies who went on childish rants about the prequels and this was the reason why he ended his involvement with it (creative consultant not withstanding). Criticism is one thing, but vicious attacks are another.
So if you prefer Jackson's bloated Hobbit movies, by all means watch away. Just remember, these are not the vision of Tolkien, but Jackson, and my guess is that Tolkien would not approve.
Yes, the company finds the door to Moria but they don't know the password. But then they turn to Gimli and ask him, since these are dwarf doors after all. But he says he doesn't know the password. Then they figure that the passowrd is a racial/genetic memory and Gimli, beign a dwarf, DOES know it, all they have to do is to jog his memory. So they put him in a sack and throw him into a pit and beat at the sack with sticks until he does remember.
This script is full of baffling scenes, at least the bits that I have read. For ex. Saruman doesn't die, instead he ends up doing card tricks in the streets of Minas Tirith. This script was from when John Boorman was trying to make the book into a film. This was around early/mid 70's. Eventually he walked away and the film finally came to Bakshi, who made it into a cartoon.
Bye for now.
First, I am not trashing Lucas, simply because I like the LotR more than the PT doesn't mean that I think Lucas is crap.
Second, you are making a logical flaw in thinking that making a film based on a book/play/comic etc is always easier than making an original story.
This is not so. They both have their own set of difficulties but one is not inherently harder than the other. It very much depends on the story you are trying to tell.
Third, LotR was considered unfilmable for many years, lots of people have tried, scripts were written and so on. That PJ managed to do it and produced a film that many liked, both book fans and non-book fans, is quite a feat.
Fourth, on a related note, simply because you have a famous book as source material doesn't mean that your film will automatically be great.
There are plenty of examples of films based on well known books that have not done very well, either critically or commercially. Ex the DUNE movie made in the 80's.
I know that PJ has gotten a lot of angry comments from Tolkien purist. One person argued that what PJ was doing was a crime fully on the level of the Holocaust. And this was a full year before the first film was even released. Adapting a book into a film is comparable to genocide?
But I agree, a lot of the flak Lucas has gotten is nothing more than personal attacks and insults and that is wrong in every sense of the word.
But sadly he is far from alone in this, Stephen King, PJ, Bryan Singer, Nolan have all gotten a lot of flak from various sections of fan groups.
Perhaps, Tolkien did sell the rights after all. And based on his comments on the scripts he did read, he was not against changes on a general principle, but he had problems with some of the actual changes he saw in the scripts.
In closing, I am a fan of the books and have been for years but I also am a fan of the LotR films. They aren't exactly the books no but I still enjoy them. Same with the Game of Thrones series, I really like the books and also the HBO show. The show has cut and changed some things but that doesn't mean it is bad.
Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark
Which some people like a lot...
Loved that movie!
I even like watching the mess which is the "Alan Smithee" version of the film, because of the extended scenes.
LOTR will never be top
PK EDIT: Language
I would pay my entire life savings to see this film.
You have the characters from the OT in the Sequel..that will connect the two. If anyone needs further help, then they need only to watch the OT & PT movies. Or go ti Wookiepedia or this site. Not need to use up screen time that could b used developing the new story in a flashback.
What is even more interesting than this topic is that Lucas initially envisioned Luke and company as Hobbits. Oh what could have been.
You're kidding, right? The Hobbit was a lot of fun and I really enjoyed it, but it was anything but a masterpiece and cannot hold a candle to even an episode of Clone Wars let alone the prequels. And no, nobody "has to admit" that the prequels were a failure. They were a HUGE success on an epic scale in every respect. Financially they dominated worldwide box offices and were among the highest grossing films of all time. In merchandising, they are second to none. Each one of them broke new ground in marketing, special effects, popular culture, and how we look at and see movies. From midnight openings to digital projection to digital filmmaking, the prequels were revolutionary. The Lord of the Rings films were not. They were just movies. Definitely great films, but not on par with the prequels, I'm sorry. Return of the King was the best of the LOTR films, but the lack of editing throughout the films makes them far too long for non-die-hard fans. I watch the Star Wars films, any of them, and they are so fast and zippy, they just go right by and move scene to scene. The LOTR films, even Return of the King, are stunningly slow films for being so epic and dazzling. I love the movies, they are definitely among my favorite films of all time (top 100), but Star Wars quality? Not a prayer, I'm sorry. I just watched all of the LOTR films again on Blu-ray in December and about two weeks later I watched all six Star Wars films, both times with my girlfriend. She, first of all, thought the prequels were better than originals, and second thought they were better than LOTR. I actually lowered my opinion of the LOTR films slightly by watching them so close to Star Wars because it made me realize how boring way too many parts of the LOTR films are and how slowly paced they are, especially Fellowship, which is a good beginning but the films continue to get better. For me it might be like Fellowship A-, Two Towers A, and Return of the King A+ (and deserving of all its Oscars).
I just find it funny that as surely as the LOTR-lovers feel that their opinions are fact, I feel just as strongly about the prequels. You may think it's "clear" how much better LOTR is, but to me it couldn't be any clearer that they're just not in any way as good as the prequels. Not visually, not characters, not storytelling. On that subject, didn't any of the LOTR lovers notice how incredibly annoying Frodo is? He is literally a terrible character. Every time he comes on screen is like a nightmare. With those stupid looks he gives, his whining, his pity party, it's just all I can do not to fast forward past his scenes. Whereas every time it's Legolas or Aragorn it's going to be awesome and the best parts of the films. Jar Jar may be "annoying" to a lot of people, but he doesn't get that much screen time and he's barely even in any of the prequels besides the first. Frodo is the main character of LOTR and is absolutely one of the more obnoxious main characters I can think of, and yet the films succeed IN SPITE of him. There's just no comparison between seeing Luke Skywalker come of age and grow in confidence versus seeing Frodo actually become even more annoying as the films wear on, which is intentional of course, like showing his journey is taking its toll, but I can't say I like Elijah Wood that much and I can't say I like Frodo either.
The LOTR trilogy, while entertaining, was not the best of the best. Half the time you can't understand what the hell anyone is saying. I've got perfect hearing and I couldn't understand Gandolph or Aragorn half the time, much less the tree people. It's all gruff and mumble and whispers. If you can't tell a part of a story in 2.5 hours or less, you suck as a story teller, period. Save that sh*t for the extra super delux expanded addition for the LOTR fans, not the friggin movie theater. As big a Star Wars fan as I am, I would say the same thing about Lucas if he did that. That's nothing more than "look at all the pretty visuals I'm showing you". Sauerman, or whoever Christopher Lee was playing, is nowhere to be found in ROTK? The tree people took care of him?, without showing it and thats it? Are you f$%^ng serious!? If I have to sit in a theater for 3.5 hours at least show how they took care of him! Thanks for playing Mr. Lee, we have some wonderful parting gifts for you! Just awful! Lucas took a bunch of grief because Darth Maul did not have a bigger part. Remember everyone bitchin about that? But at least he was in the friggin movie! If Sauron was the number 1 "bad guy" and Sauerman was number 2 , that would be exactly like Lucas saying in Jedi, "oh Vader? yeah well the Emperor found out he tried to recruit Luke so he killed him, but that happened off screen". Master storyteller my ass. Go to an LOTR forum and talk your sh*t. Oh and The Hobbit? That's the quietest 300 million I've ever heard a movie making. I thought it was out of theaters in just a few weeks because NO ONE and I mean NO ONE but LOTR fans was talking about it much less call it a masterpiece. I asked people if it was good and they said wait for the Blu-Ray so you can FF thru the 30-45 minutes of meaningless bs, just like the 1st trilogy. Oh, and if I want to hear Hobbits sing, I'll go to Chuck'E'Cheese. Here's another little fact between the masterpiece and "dismal failure" that some of you say is the PT, AOTC did 320 million and was considered, maybe not a failure per se, but at least a disappointment, by it's CREATOR and FANS, but The Hobbit is a masterpiece? That shows the difference between SW fans and LOTR fans. We don't think everything GL does is genious but apparently Peter Jackson can do no wrong, even when he kills a classic like King Kong, which, again, was waaaaaaaay too long! Oh, by the way, AOTC outgrossed FOTR, look it up. NO LOTR movie even came close to the so called abyssmal film that was TPM, and ROTS out box officed all LOTR films as well, even after all the bad reviews of the 2 previous films. AOTC only fell to TTT and ROTK, but it beat FOTR and The Hobbit and movie tix cost more today than back in 2002, so even AOTC is batting 500 against the brilliance that is the LOTR trilogy.
1 last thing and I'll get off my pulpit: STAR WARS CAME OUT OF THE HEAD OF GEORGE LUCAS AND HE MADE THE FILMS. PETER JACKSON ONLY ADAPTED LOTR. Holy Sh*t was that a rant!
Fact is, you give the public a Greatest Film of All Time List to vote for which includes all the OT movies & LOTR and Star Wars will win. Just as it did years ago when such a poll was done here for TV and it got got twice as many votes as 2nd place Godfather. Everyone knew it would win, because it's loved by so many people.
LOTR is a critcally acclaimed masterpiece just as Citizen Kane is, but ask people to vote for their favourite movie and Star Wars tends to Rule Them All. Why? Because it has something in it everyone can relate to. LOTR might be well-made, better made than any of the SW movies infact but it does not have the broad appeal.
LOTR has tarnished its reputation with the Hobbit. If it can redeem itself with the next 2 films, then it will still be a threat.
Cant understand Gandolph or Aragron..................Im Sure you had a wonderful time listening to Jar Jar Binks and Boss Nass, not to mention the Clueless, hapless, clumsy, goofball battledroids.
Gandolph or Aragron are bad ass heros in the classic sense...............they are a very big reason why LOTR is such a Masterpiece !!!
It's Gandalf and Aragorn.
Why can't you go to a LOTR fan site if you prefer it so much? I'm tired of this. I loved LOTR. But SW is a huge part of my life. Some people go out and learn to speak Elvish or Klingon. Great, But they have nothing to do with each other. I watched ST for years, and watch the movies but none of them can ever take SW place.
The parts of this sentence... they do not go together.
One thing's for sure is the Sequel Trilogy, or at least VII, will be more popular than the newer Hobbit movies.
The title of the topic brings to mind the accolades and audience reaction given to Lord of the Rings from 2001. The same was done with STAR WARS in 1977 on a larger scale and the franchise dominated for the next six years in that genre, in toys, in the Halloween costumes and playtime activities of kids. I think Lord of the Rings as well as a few other franchises benefited from the public and popular disappointment and bashing of the prequels. Suddenly after the prequels a mainstream backlash began against CGI but those films allowed the technology's reputation to rebound as they showed visual effects-heavy fantasy films could be intense, dramatic, etc. Suddenly STAR WARS became included in the condescending (and now ridiculously embraced) categorization of "geek" and "fanboys living in basements" but not LOTR. (Personally, I didn't care about going to see Lord of the Rings movies until the third one came out, probably for that reason. I've only seen those movies twice each, and it bugs me when I see Star Wars fans wanting SW movies to be in the same style as LOTR movies.)
SInce this was all you could complain about It's nice to see you concede all my other points. I still don't know how Gandolph & Aragon wer bad ass heroes. If that does it for you that's cool, you do, however, sound defensive, like you're trying to convince yourself that LOTR is as good as you think it is
Star Wars will LONG outlive Peter Jacksons films...
Well as counter evidence I can bring up IMDB top 250 list.
In order the SW/LotR are; 9. RotK, 11. ESB, 12. FotR, 16. ANH, 20. TTT and 80. RotJ.
This is a poll that the public can vote and have been voting on for many years. BTW. the Hobbit is no 176 on this list.
As for broad appeal, Fantasy films have historically not done terribly well at the BO prior to LotR and HP. The bigger hits were Willow, Conan, Dragonheart etc. And they didn't do that well. All three LotR films did very well, RotK was the first film since Titanic to pass a billion worldwide.
Sure BO isn't the be all and end all of quality but I think it is a little harsh to say that LotR doesn't have broad appeal.
Bye for now.
Yes, IMDB... the stalwart bastion of unbiased, un-edit-able truth about cinema on the internet...
About the claim that the LotR films did nothing in regards to marketing, moviemaking, effects and all that.
I disagree. First all three films were filmed all in one go, that is unprecedented in film history. Two films have been shot at once but not three.
Advancement in effects, MASSIVE comes to mind as a new thing. Doing live motion capture directly with the other actors on set can be another. At least I don't know any movie that did that before the LotR films. Also CGI-characters, yes I know Jar Jar came before and so did Casper and the Dragon in Dragonheart. But Gollum was a change in how performance driven the character was and the quality of the performance, not just the effects.
For ex. Stan Winston called Gollum the best performance of that year and it was a digital character. Without Gollum you probably would not have Ceasar in Rise of the Planets of the Apes for ex.
Also making three films and releasing them one every year was quite new in marketing. It was also a huge gamble, if the first did poorly, it would could mean disaster for the other two. Ex. Reloaded did quite well but the audience reaction was mixed and so Revolutions made less than half at the BO.
Further with marketing, you had one film in dec, then the DVD in aug and the EE DVD in nov and the second film in dec and so on. That is very clever from a marketing standpoint and quite new.
Another thing you might credit the LotR films with is really big DVD sets with LOTS of extra material. Prior to the EE FotR 4-disc, such big sets were not so common. Those DVDs got a lot of praise and set the bar for in-depth behind the scenes material.
And lastly, prior to RotK, NO SciFi/Fantasy film had ever won Best Picture at the Oscars. Sure they are not the be all and end all of good films but that a genre film like this could win it's highest award is notable.
Oh and speaking about the Hobbit, that film did quite a bit when it cam to digital cinema and the use of 48 fps. That was quite new and the film did get quite a bit of flak for that and some say they would have been better of not doing it. But it was an attempt to change digital cinema. Wheter it worked or not remains to be seen.
And for the record, I liked the Hobbit but nowhere near as much as the first three and I don't think it is a masterpiece. From what I've read on LotR sites many share my view. The movie was pretty good, not to the level of LotR but not horrible. Some dislike it very much and others thinks it is the best yet. So I wouldn't say that LotR fans give PJ a free pass with this film.
Yes the SW films had a big impact on the movie industry and made a lot of money and were recieved well. But the LotR films did as well, the worlwide gross of the three films is almost 3 billion dollars, that is huge any way you look at it.
Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark