[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Both are grand epics about the empowerment of the meek set in fabulous, exotic worlds. It is THE formula for a hit narrative aimed at geeks.

Aaaah, victory of the underdog.

[emma]

Originally Posted by Henke

I can't believe you were that bored when you watched that magnificent movie. :eek:

Where did I say I was bored? I was completely blown away, hence why I was amazed that I noticed it AT ALL... :eek: Whatever...

[Garyos]

Originally Posted by emma

A couple of fun details, the orch that led the attach on Minas Tirith looked exactly like Lard from the Goonies, the one the guy that plays Sam starred in as a kid. And Peter Jackson managed to use a couple of kids for the third time in the trilogy, they've been in every one of them, hahahaha! Love details like that! They were scared kids in the first one when Bilbo was telling stories, scared kids in the cave of Helms Deep, and now scared kids at the side of the street as the Faramir rode out to face the enemy. LOL! Can't believe I noticed it amongst all the things that happened...

I never saw Goonies, so I figured the orc was a Bad Taste homage... Did anyone see Peter Jackson in this, btw? I spotted him right away in the two previous movies, but not here...

[emma]

His "real" name was apparantly Sloth, but was mostly called lard(ass) in the movie.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by emma

Where did I say I was bored? I was completely blown away, hence why I was amazed that I noticed it AT ALL... :eek: Whatever...

Oh, it must have something to do with womans capability to do several things at the same time.

[James]

Remixor, I can't think of another film event that surpasses this, for sheer accessability, cross market appeal and production excellence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by James

Remixor, I can't think of another film event that surpasses this, for sheer accessability, cross market appeal and production excellence. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Whether that's true or not, it's completely different than calling it a mass defining cultural event. It certainly doesn't speak to what I perceive as my generation, or define my experiences in any way whatsoever. Good movies, though.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by remixor

Whether that's true or not, it's completely different than calling it a mass defining cultural event. It certainly doesn't speak to what I perceive as my generation, or define my experiences in any way whatsoever. Good movies, though.

Well part of what Tolkien wanted to do was to create a mythology for the modern ages (the past century). The mythologies in ancient times was of course a way of telling about your every day miseries (war for example) and wonders of unexplained things, in an intresting way.

So most of what happens in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy is taken from the two world wars but there is other things in there as well. So it is reflecting some of the things that we have today more then for example old norse tales does. But it is of course nothing we can relate to straight of (it was after all written over 40 years ago).

I didn't notice if the filmmakers did put some more modern issues in the movies but they probably couldn't have since some people would have opposed such things very strongly. There were even talk about such things as the title "The Two Towers" was refering to the twin towers and the fact that all black people in the movie were "bad guys" was some sort of a hidden message and equal nonesense. But they did in fact only film the books straight of (with some minor story changes for the pace of the movies sake). So they does in any case speak more to the last two or maybe three generations then any old fashioned stories of this kind have done.

[Jake]

... yeah. Despite being a few years too young I've still just considered Star Wars to be the Star Wars of my generation.

Maybe for people like 10 years younger than me but I cannot speak for them? If that's the case I think that's sort of funny because then Lord of the Rings would be the Star Wars for their generation as well as, to a point, their/our parents. But I don't really know about that.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Henke

Well part of what Tolkien wanted to do was to create a mythology for the modern ages (the past century). The mythologies in ancient times was of course a way of telling about your every day miseries (war for example) and wonders of unexplained things, in an intresting way.

He wanted to create a new mythology, but a fictional one nonetheless. He did not intend for it to mirror our own struggles in any way other than in a general human sense. He was not referring to specific events; the overall conflicts in LOTR cannot be pinpointed down to a particular human era. There may be time periods during which people relate to the books more because they are in need of such a clear-cut good and evil story (which is what LOTR is; it's about as basic black and white as they come), but to extend that to the films I think would not be accurate. By now, these films are nothing new. They certainly brought many existing techniques to new monetary heights, but it's not as if Peter Jackson created anything that was revolutionary; there's been a cinematic trend towards "epics" in the last several years (this should be obvious to anybody) and the LOTR films are simply a few of the most epic epics. They were done extremely well, but I must reiterate that to say they connect on a deep level (or, God forbid, define) a generation is a huge overstatement.

So most of what happens in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy is taken from the two world wars but there is other things in there as well. So it is reflecting some of the things that we have today more then for example old norse tales does. But it is of course nothing we can relate to straight of (it was after all written over 40 years ago).

This absolutely untrue. Tolkien categorically denied any connection to WW2 (or any other war, or anything else really) multiple times, stating that he despises allegory in practically all its forms and did not desire to have LOTR run parallel to anything in our own world.

I didn't notice if the filmmakers did put some more modern issues in the movies but they probably couldn't have since some people would have opposed such things very strongly. There were even talk about such things as the title "The Two Towers" was refering to the twin towers and the fact that all black people in the movie were "bad guys" was some sort of a hidden message and equal nonesense. But they did in fact only film the books straight of (with some minor story changes for the pace of the movies sake). So they does in any case speak more to the last two or maybe three generations then any old fashioned stories of this kind have done.

The books speak to whomever discovers them and loves them, and the movies likewise (although the movies are obviously much more pop culture than the books, being, essentially, a Hollywood product despite all the overseas production), but this is true for all films and all books. However, this does not mean the LOTR films by any means communicate to an entire generation somehow. I don't understand how that could possibly be the case. Just because most people seem to like them means nothing else than that they are good/entertaining movies, and they are already based on popular source material to boot. In the same vein, I would not say The Matrix speaks to my generation, despite its enormous box office success and popularity.

[Wormsie]

I watched the first LOTR movie. I didn't like it.

[James]

I'd reference Star Wars as the event of our parents generation, I being 18. Sure I can barely remember the Droids cartoons and certainly watched the films as a child, but this is different.

Tolkien is applicable to all generations, but pertains especially to our own. While visions of war are certainly applicable in the modern setting, there is little, if anything of LotR that is allegorical or metaphorical. As a philosophy, I think the profound respect and understanding of nature is crucial to the message of LotR. Saruman and Sauron ultimately represent industrialists, creating a new world of harsh metal and efficicency in their own image. Contrasting with this is the elegance and harmony of the Elves, and the nobility of the race of Men. This is supplemented by the Ents, a race from and in nature.

For me, the series speaks of an undying hope, a fool's hope, as Gandalf would have it. It speaks of addiction and human fraility. It speaks of good conquering evil, and speaks of the subtlely of what we define as evil. The films represent a milestone in film making. They also give new life to the saga that has enchanted millions since its inception. Classics.

[Zygomaticus]

I can see how one can connect the story of the Lord of the Rings to the World Wars, but if the writer didn't intend for it to be linked that way, then it shouldn't be.

That said, good movies, although, agreeing with Remixor, they are as Black and White as it gets - somewhat unrealistic, if you ask me. While Star Wars, understandably so causes you to feel something for the badguy (Vader, silly, not the emperor!), Lord of the Rings offers little or no goodness to the badguy. He's bad to the bone, as it were.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by remixor

This absolutely untrue. Tolkien categorically denied any connection to WW2 (or any other war, or anything else really) multiple times, stating that he despises allegory in practically all its forms and did not desire to have LOTR run parallel to anything in our own world.

Well Tolkien got many of the ideas for the books while he lay wounded on the battlefield so to deny all connections it may have is a little wrong IMO.

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Kode

While Star Wars, understandably so causes you to feel something for the badguy (Vader, silly, not the emperor!), Lord of the Rings offers little or no goodness to the badguy. He's bad to the bone, as it were.

If you read The Silmarillion you will learn that Sauron is pretty much the Fallen One. The creation myth is the only thing I remember from that book... I read it five years ago? Hmm... I should lay off the hooch, damn thing is killing the memory of things that really matter, like literature.

[Royal Fool]

Wow, I've been avoiding all the ROTK media (Trailers and the like) up until seeing the movie and...

Goodness. Return of the King is probably one of the biggest (If not the biggest) and baddest films made to date. Awesome. *still in shock, 5 hours later*

They also showed the new Spider-Man 2 teaser. I can't wait for that one!

Slight ROTK spoiler:

Spoiler:

I liked how they added Sméagol's history to the beginning of the film. It helps people understand just what sort of poor and wretched creature Gollum is.

[Igor]

Remixor, agree with you. Good movies (at least first two, didn't see third one yet), but i wouldn't call them a milestone in film making. Maybe in special effects department Don't know... Too big&pompous for my taste.
I guess i must be the only one, who found "over the top" final 1 hour battle in "Two Towers" incredibly boring.

[Kingzjester]

I am generally annoyed by over the top epic movies of the 'Gladiator' and 'Pearl Harbor' ilk, but the Bling Bling movies really didn't annoy me. Perhaps my impression of the movie is feeding of the fond memory I have for the books - that indeed was the case when I first saw the first movie. I felt it was a series of illustrations for the book. I also felt that the 'style was off' - that is - 'not how I envisioned it'. But that feeling was gone by the second installment.

No body has mentioned this yet, but I heard some critics bitch about the 'weak' acting of the Frodo feller, when he was masterful, actually. He behaves, gestures and emotes just like a self-doubting, introspective, idealistic youth should.

[Igor]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

I felt it was a series of illustrations for the book.

Yeah, agree. That's exactly why i did like movies despite being all grand and over the top. The visuals are breath-taking and they simply pull you into the world on screen. Of course, there are other great stuff between all those annoying battles too
For all it's worth, this probably is as good as adaptation of LoTR books can get on screen... it's just not my vision of superb movie, that's all.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

No body has mentioned this yet, but I heard some critics bitch about the 'weak' acting of the Frodo feller, when he was masterful, actually. He behaves, gestures and emotes just like a self-doubting, introspective, idealistic youth should.

Huh? Please explain that again.

Originally Posted by Igor

For all it's worth, this probably is as good as adaptation of LoTR books can get on screen... it's just not my vision of superb movie, that's all.

I don't agree. In fact, I don't agree at all. An adaption of the LOTR books can be better in many ways and this is more or less exactly my vision of a superb movie (if only Hollywood wouldn't have contributed anything more then money and actors it would have been truly perfect).