LotR Cleans Up at AFI 304
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
LotR Cleans Up at AFI
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
Memento was a much better film then LOTR. (Score:1, Interesting)
Cleans house at AFI, AS it should ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they should make a new award "Reminds me of a when I was a kid". Because the entire movie followed the book quite well IMHO. I haven't read the books for some time, but not in my wildest imagination could I have dreamed of the landscapes and characters in the film. The hobbits never wearing shoes, the magic and understanding of wizzards and elves. The hatred of elves and dwarfs and how humans are low on the totem poll of evolution.
The visual effects drew you in and you never once thought that it was fake, but the time and dedication it would have taken to make the builsings and structures that were in the film. Also the true understanding of the power of the ring and the power of commitment.
I did, however, confuse the story of the hobbit in the begining, but that was portrayed to me in a flashback at the begining where the stories start and begin. They were all meant to go together and they do so wonderfully. I don't think Tolkein could have understood what an impact his stories would have actually had on the world when he wrote them.
For a bit of humor... someone who accompanied me who had not read the books didn't irst understand that the movie WAS 3 hours long and was getting a little bored by not really understanding what was happening in the movie and not getting into it. But I think we can all relate to the next quote directly when the credits started "WHAT??!!! that was it??? no WAY ... they can't just end it like that!!!" ...
Well I will say that my X-Mas present of the LoTR book set from think geek has been confisgated for a while now :-) ... ohh well at least she'll know that the movie ended there for a reason ... hehehe the book ended :-)
Re:Three whole awards (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget its source. (Score:4, Interesting)
You -do- realise that the film was made almost wholly in a city so small it'd hardly feature on any US map
LOTR is leaps and bounds larger than anything created previously in NZ and the infrastructure struggled to do even one film a year. I expect since the shooting is essentially finished, the next two films will have even better editing and computer-generated improvements.
It is rare for such a small country to produce globally acclaimed films; generally this is done by producing offbeat cult films, although those are found more in art-house cinemas. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic or anything, I'm simply believing a large percentage of viewers probably think its yet another piece of US produce.
I personally really enjoyed the film; I had read the first book when I was younger and I just don't think that a graphic portrayal could have been done any better. As for the characters; sure its not the character study of the century, but it sure is alot better than pretty much any standard hollywood film
Allgeory and C.S. Lewis and Tolkien (Score:5, Interesting)
As others have already pointed out, Tolkien denies any sort of intentional allgeory or historical reference in his books.
At the same time, don't forget that many of the same right-wing Christian groups that go around burning "Harry Potter" books also tend to take a very dim view of Catholics (or "papists" as they would call them). I know, my niece's mother takes my niece to just one such church, much to my and my brother's annoyance.
I gave her LOTR for Christmas...and "A Wrinkle in Time", which I call the "stealth bomb for eight-year-olds". >:-)
At any rate, it's interesting to note that the "Narnia" series from C.S. Lewis is not so often objected to by these same groups -- even though Lewis and Tolkien were close friends and shared many of the same views. (Lewis had been agnostic, and Tolkien tried to convert him to Catholicism, but Lewis became an Anglican instead -- i.e. Protestant, if only barely.) However, "Narnia" is clearly an allegory, with Aslan the Lion directly representing Christ -- Lewis said so himself.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:Not my Favorite (Score:2, Interesting)
I've reviewed this post and it contains SPOILERS....
The Lord of the Rings Movie didn't really make me feel much.
Agreed. Hear me out.
I loved the movie, and thought that it was pretty true to the book -- mainly leaving out only the slowest/least relevant part (between the Shire and the Prancing Pony). But there's one thing that just couldn't fit into even a four-hour movie of Fellowship's scope: character development.
Before you mod me a troll, consider this:
For instance: Aragorn's initial hostility (which evolves into a desire to protect the hobbits)... Legolas and Gimli's distrust of each other (touched on in this film, hopefully to be expanded upon in the next)... the family relationship between the Bagginses and the rest of Hobbit culture... Sam's preoccupation with elves (touched on, yes, but not truly developed)... there's only so much that a movie can go into in any given period of time. That's why, even though a person can read faster than characters on a screen can speak or move, I don't think anyone could read the whole book in less than three hours. To get the whole book into one three-hour movie, they needed to make some sacrifices. Other movies are able to focus on character development more, because they're not simultaneously trying to fit the first 1/3 of an epic into such a short span of time.
Basically, I think that instead of three movies, they could have made six, just like the structure of the actual printed work -- each is actually divided into two Books, with a total of six Books altogether. If the studios and producers had given the directors the ability to split it up further (and if the directors had had the inclination to do so), then both character development and the complete story could probably have fit into six two-hour movies.
So I can see how it might not make one feel like much, beyond the elation and excitement that they bring with them into the theater.
POSTSCRIPT:
I have to comment that the directors did an admirable job of portraying two things that I would never have imagined anything but the book to be capable of: the respect and almost fear that Gandalf exudes over the Hobbits (the best part being in the beginning when he is chased by the child hobbits); and the complete subservience to the Ring that all of its bearers have felt. How cool was that when Bilbo's eyes nearly popped out of his skull at Rivendell -- "My precious!!" For whatever may be my criticisms, I still think the movie did an amazing job of being true to the book.
Re:Is it just me? (Score:2, Interesting)
And there were many things that were distracting; such as:
- blond haired evles with dark brown eyebrows
- Orcs that looked like the Insane Clown Posse
- Elves that seemed more human than elvish
- lack of hobbit & elvish song made the movie bland.
- etc
BTW, I am a huge Tolkien fan, but I wish that I had never seen the movie.
domc
Harry Potter v. LOTR (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Box office totals? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sadly, probably not. It was a risk, a big one. They could've lost money big-time.
Hollyweird is very risk-adverse. Fortunately this risk has paid off in a big way.
Milalwi
Re:More precisely... (Score:2, Interesting)
To really do Lord of the Rings properly (Score:3, Interesting)
Even so, I think Peter Jackson did some right things in taking a lot of what was related in the council debate and showing it on camera, with the capture of Gandalf and so forth. In fact, if you did the miniseries concept I would have played up that element, showing the Ringwraiths harassing the dwarves and the whole bit with Gandalf and in general the shadows gathering around the Shire while the hobbits took their time.
The Glorfindel/Arwen substition I have mixed feelings about. Not that we ever got much of a view of Arwen in the books but she always struck me as the more domestic type and so it wasn't quite true to character. I wouldn't have minded having the whole Aragorn/Arwen meeting that was given in one of the Appendices in flashback at some point to fill the background in as an alternate way to bring her in.
Re:Box office totals? (Score:2, Interesting)
I do agree it's very unlikely that LOTR will hit top 5 or top 10 for that matter. But with its 3 hour runtime, I'd say it's doing very impressively.
Re:More precisely... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a pretty banal bitch, but I feel it's worth mentioning, so bear with me.
From one Tolkien nerd to another. ;-)
I am no longer embarrased to admit that I have read the Silmarillion multiple times. I do know the difference between the Maiar and the Valar, and I know how Feanor died. I can tell you who Luthien's parents were, and why Earendil was important.
Therefore, I personally have stopped debasing myself whenever this comes up in conversation. Tolkien has presented a rich mythology, one that Joseph Campbell would have wholeheartedly approved of. (Someone correct me if I am wrong, please.) Tolkien appeals to me more than Christianity does (although make no mistake, it is not my religion).
My point? That I am not, goddammit, going to be embarrassed any longer about my extensive knowledge of Tolkien. I don't CARE if Julia Roberts or Tyler Durden would make fun of me. They can go fuck themselves.