LotR Cleans Up at AFI

bigdreamer writes "Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds. this CNN article says it won the most awards, including Best Picture, at the first annual American Film Institute awards Saturday."

Three whole awards

[dgood]

The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?

Of course

[eln]

Of course it got the most awards, it's making the most money. That's how Hollywood awards work.

Is it just me?

[Flarners]

Am I the only one who was not at all impressed with the movie? Sure, the visual effects were stunning and the cinematography was gorgeous, but overall the movie just felt empty. The movie didn't show any real character development or other basic storytelling premises. It was just one thing happening after another over and over again for a full three hours, with little rhyme or reason applied to the events. First they find the ring then they get chased by ringwraiths then they meet Aragorn then they get chased by ringwraiths again then Frodo gets sick then they go to Rivendale then.... you get the picture. This sort of filmmaking works wonders for popcorn action movies like Mission Impossible and the Jackie Chan movie du jour, but I was honestly expecting more of the greatest fantasy works of the twentieth century.

Recency effect?

[Black Parrot]

Whenever I see awards or polls for "best of the year" or "decade" or "century" or "all time", I figure you should normalize the results by multiplying each entry's rank in the list by the log of the time since it came out. The recency hype dominates awards and polls, as can be seen by look at e.g. the all-time top films [imdb.com] at IMDB. I mean c'mon, Memento as the tenth best film ever? American Beauty as the 18th???

When you see 50-60 year old films still rated in the top 50 you have to concede that they've got some genuine enduring quality, but some of the more recent ones probably won't even be remembered a decade from now.

So maybe LotR is great (dunno; the hype turned me off from going to see it yet), but right now the only "news" would be if it didn't win an award.

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR.

[joshjs]

It really depends how you think of it: Memento was incredibly well-written and very, very, very thoughtfully put-together. Lord of the Rings was your typical huge, beautiful, grandoise masterpiece kind of thing. Personally, I feel Memento deserves a nod as the best picture of the year, yeah, but I think Joe Movie Nerd responds a bit better to the kind of epic visual adventure that LoTR brings.

That is simply my opinion, though, for your reflection.

LOTR, starting a trend that I hope continues...

[ThomasMis]

In anticipation for the film's opening, I read Tolkien for the very first time (as a young'un I was a D&D geek, so you have thought I would have taken the time years ago to discover Tolkien's middle earth). After experiencing the Hobbit and Fellowship, I had very low expectations for the movie adaptation. And for good reason. Hollywood script writers are natorieous for completely throwing out the source material when writing a movie version. And subsequesntly the movie going audience is left with a story and characters that are barely anything like the book version (which of course, the movies always suck) As a comic fan, you see this over and over again, when comic hero's make thier way to the big screen (Batman and Robin, Spawn anyone). It's like Holywood doesn't fully trust the original authers. But lately things have been getting better... X-men wasn't turned into a corny joke, LOTR kept to Tolkien storyline, Frank Miller is writing a script for a real batman film....

So to sum up, I hope this starts a trend in Hollywood amoung script writers. That they should stick to the orignial works more closely (although the message isn't going to get out in time for the HellBlazer movie... which they already cast Nick Cage for!!! Good god is that going to suck.)

Re:Christians Nerds

[ryants]

Lord of the rings is a allegorically based on biblical stories.

As pointed out by others, this was explicitly denied by Tolkein himself.

One has to remember that the Biblical stories are not all that original. Death and resurrection, battles between Good and Evil, powerful staffs, the humble and unwilling hero, etc appear in all kinds of myths, not just in the Bible, and many pre-date the Bible.

This interview smacks more of a co-opting of the work to further an agenda than anything else.

Me Too

[SteveM]

I enjoyed the movie. As mentioned the visuals were stunning. And I thought the casting was excellent, althought I expected the hobbits to be a bit plumper.

But I also felt that they missed the boat big time by focusing on the battles and not developing the characters.

Two that I particularly missed included the growing friendship between Legolas and Gimli. I was disappointed that the blindfold confrontation was left out along with Gimli getting a lock of Kate's (I can't spell her characters name, and I'm too lazy to look it up) hair.

The other was the development of Sam's loyalty especially as seen with respect to Bill the pony. (And it was pointed out to me after the fact, where did the pony come from? The only time we see it in the movie is when they are about to enter the mines of Moria.)

By focusing only on the adventure part of the tale, they left the fellowship part out of the 'Fellowship'. I described it to a friend as if the book was written by someone who was there, while the movie was done by a 'historian' after the fact.

And because of that I left the theater disappointed.

Steve M

Re:Memento was a much better film then LOTR.

[Cynical_Dude]

To put it bluntly: Memento [imdb.com] forced me to think, while LOTR [imdb.com] had me gaping at the screen, drooling into my popcorn.

I think Memento beat LOTR in originality but overall the better cinematic experience was LOTR.

Filthy sums up best what I didn't like about Memento. [bigempire.com]

Then again, these awards aren't about how good or bad a movie is and I think we all know that.

With 95% of new movies being the same old Hollywood gunk, I'm actually glad to see this move. That's Lobstertainment!

Re:Box office stats links here!

[jheinen]

Keep in mind that since it's a three hour movie, it cannot be shown as often during a given day on a single screen as your typical 90 minute film. Therefore box office grosses must necessarily be smaller for any given time period. That simple fact alone will keep it from breaking too many box office records.

Re:Christians Nerds

[Brian_Ellenberger]

From Letter #142:
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like `religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

I agree that LotR is not an allegory of anything, Tolkien did say that his Christian beliefs did influence LotR alot. You can especially see this if you read the Silm. Gandalf isn't just some guy doing magic, he is an angel clothed in flesh. Morgoth and Sauron are fallen angels.

And yes, GvsE and stuff is quite common. However, you can see many Christian influences. The central theme of the corruption and temptation of the ring is very Christian and what sets LotR apart. In just-another-myth Frodo would be the unlikely hero who learns how to wield the ring and become powerful.

There are many other little details, such as Gollum. Gandalf's speech about pity and not killing Gollum is VERY Christian (and actually very Catholic).

I'm not descending into a "whose religion is better" pissing contest. I'm just saying to deny that Tolkien's faith didn't have a strong influence is wrong.

Brian Ellenberger

See... here's the thing.

[mindstrm]

I've heard what you said from a number of people.. and I can't dispute it. Those who haven't read the books don't seem to like it much. Those who did usually love it.

I have read the books, probably twice over the years.. so for me, the movie was an unbelievable experience.. They brought the book to life (parts of it, anyway). It's by far the most enjoyable movie I've seen in my life. It was 3 hours of magic.

The real attraction for me was watching a good book come to life on screen.. and in an amazing way. They didn't butcher it. Sure, they could have done more character development, they could also have put in all the songs, and they could have not left out whole scenes from the book... and they could also have ended up with a 9 hour movie. What you say about the Potter movies being edited 'right' for the bigscreen is exactly what I thought of LOTR.

As for what you've 'heard' about the characters in the book... I disagree. Gandalf was not a 'manipulative SOB'. He was pretty much exactly what you see in the film. Now.. of course, if you want to really know, please, read the books for yourself.

Also.. comparing Harry Potter to LOTR as literary works is apples and oranges.
Harry Potter is great, I loved the books.. but it's absolutely not in the same league as LOTR. LOTR is a literary masterpiece. Harry Potter is just a popular book that's light and interesting.

BTW.. Did you konw they renamed it for US distribution? To the rest of the world it's "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone". They also changed many British words in the book to something more American, "Trunk" instead of "Boot" etc..

LOL! Racist?

[mindstrm]

Uhh... they were *fantasy* characters.. how do you peg that they were all Christians?
Christian groups endorse the film simply because it has a very distinct good -vs- evil mentality.. basically everything relating to magic is evil (not quite, but almost), Aragorn is a good messianic figure, etc, etc...

Non-white? IT's *FANTASY*.
Elves, dwarves, goblins, hobbits, humans, orcs, orukai, and a cave troll.. that's a pretty good racial background I believe...

As for suckage.. the movie is intended to bring the book to life on screen. If you haven't read the book, it's no wonder it sucks. If you had, you would have loved it.

Re:Recency effect?

[Misha]

there are still ONLY 17 films dating back to 1990 in the top 50. and although i disagree with some selections like The Sixth Sense, Requiem for a Dream and Shrek, in the past 11 years advances in film-making both technological (Matrix, LOTR, Toy Story, ), production-wise (Saving Private Ryan, LOTR, Titanic [thank god it didn't make top 50]), and screenplay-wise (The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Fight Club) have raised the standard for movies.

While it is difficult to match your first experience at the movies or the first time you saw Star Wars and Godfather, when you go to the movies you simply expect to see more. And while the audience does or does not realize it, they DO see more (Scary Movie notwithstanding :). I think that explains to some degree why over 35 percent of the IMDB is so recent, and that it is not completely undeservingly so.

Re:Is it just me?

[tdelaney]

Personally, I agree to some extent - what I was most disappointed about was there there was little character development and interaction within the Fellowship. In particular, I missed the Gimli/Legolas relationship, and the Gimli/Galadriel relationship.

I believe these were all part of the 3hr 40min movie PJ presented as his "I've cut it as much as I can". We have been told that these extra 30-40 mins will be on the DVD.

However, even with the cuts, FotR was an incredible cinematic experience (Gold Class is a Good Thing(TM) - recliners, 32 people in the cinema, *no kids* - everyone must be 18+).

For the record: I own 4 copies of LotR (including illustrated and onion-skin limited edition) and I have never advocated boycotting DVD. I simply have multi-region DVD players and watch my region 1 anime DVDs here in Australia (region 4).

Re:Of course

[DNS-and-BIND]

Movies make money because of effective marketing, and because there is a rather large-ish group of people out there who will go see *any* crappy Hollywood movie that comes out, as long as it's new. Money-making is, in fact, the primary barometer of "good film" in Hollywood, because it's the whole reason for Hollywood's existence, and they like to reward the good guys.

Why this film will win awards and top lists

[hacksoncode]

People have commented on how silly it is that this film is on top of the IMDB (www.imdb.com) listing, and how it's a bad film. While the former can be easily explained by the existance of vast hoards of "fans" in the "fanatic" sense, it may be hard to see for some why traditional awards organizations might want to honor this film.

After all, the character development is minimal (so far in the story), the plot is fractured by being 1/3rd of a story, etc. It doesn't have any of the characteristics of a good movie, viewed standalone.

While I think there's a reasonable possibility that these accolades will be entirely justified, even in traditional movie terms, once the entire 8-9 hour movie is complete (LotR being a single 3 volume novel, after all), I think there's something deeper going on.

Think of it this way: LotR:FotR isn't a movie. Even viewed as 1/3 of a movie (which is a more accurate in any event), it isn't really a traditional movie.

It's much more accurate to view this film as some kind of artistic travelogue or visual aid for the book.

A movie is an entirely self-contained form of entertainment. The film version of LotR seems to have been developed in a completely unique manner, AFAICT.

Look closely: half of the film is inside "jokes". That's not really accurate but it's the closest analogy I can think of. There's no explicit reason in the movie for many of the little details, but if you pay attention, you'll find that almost every off hand line by an extra, or reference to a far off place in passing is an accurate allusion to the books.

I left the whole thing speachless, not so much because of the excellent cinematography, but because of the shear *depth* of the translation of the novel. On the surface, they had to change many things to produce a "movie" that would have a chance of selling to a mass audience and pay for it's production costs. It's the 3d quality of the interpretation that I found so mentally stunning.

Viewed in this way, it's clear why the film is doing so well critically and in mass appeal: it's absolutely the best movie ever made in its class... and I don't mean at all to damn it with faint praise by saying that's because it's the *only* movie ever made in it's class.

Nerd arrogance

[Z4rd0Z]

From the Slashdot article: Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds.

This is a rather arrogant attitude that I find annoying. These books were written long ago before there even was such a thing as a "nerd". My grandma, who was a tough Montana pioneer woman, liked Tolkien's books. In the 60s, the Tolkien books were very popular among college students. Where is it written that Lord of the Rings was made for nerds?

Re:am i alone here?

[androman]

I see we've almost covered all of the "I recognize that actor" jokes for this film.
Now lets never mention them again.