Slashdot Mirror
LotR Takes Top Spot on IMDB
Dwarf_Sibling writes "Hard to believe but with over 11,000 votes tallied LoTR:FoTR has displaced "The Godfather" as the highest rated movie at IMDB. Over time I'd guess this will fall lower, but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie."
but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie. ;)
Or a mediocre one for a kid with a script...
I honestly couldn't say much more then the title of this comment. Excellent
movie.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
I guess my point is that maybe this is why it's doing so well - even the people who aren't into fantasy like it because of the action and great effects. (And all the hype surrounding it.)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
It is a fantastic movie, and apart from slightly too long fight scenes, an overuse of dramatic music, and a penchant for long fly by panning shots, there is very little to be criticized. Excellent execution that keeps you riveted to your seat for 3 hours straight. You have to respect LotR for making a superb movie given the challenges, versus saying putting a bunch of people in suits and getting them to talk with an Italian accent.
Don't get me wrong, but I don't think that LOtR was any better than the godfather, or for that matter, better than any of the top ten movies on the IMDB's list. While it was great, and I was happy to see it twice this week, it just doesn't have what it takes to beat the godfather (for that matter, it doesn't beat the rest of the top ten, by and large).
I mean, yes, it was great. Great FX, great cast, great story. But better than Citizen Kane? no way. I mean, the movie it knocked out of the top ten was Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. In my mine, there's no contest. Strangelove wins every time.
Nothing finer than starting off monday morning burning some karma.
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
I talking to a secretary once and she wanted to know a url for something. I mentioned a tilde (~) in the address and she literally said, with honesty, "Oh, you are getting technical on me." Had to point out where the key was.
Now, considering all the people who are "technical" plus all those who just happen to be on the web, is it too much of a surprise that LoTR could do this? I'll gladly go by ticket sales as an idicator vs imdb.com.
And don't think about going by DVD or VHS sales. For some, that's "high tech" as well...
-s
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
We'll just have to see if George Lucas can get his act together and displace LoTR:FoTR with SWep2:AOTC. A lot of people have been hyping that movie, and it'll be interesting to see if George Lucas learns from his mistakes in SWep1:TPM. After that, the ball will be in Peter Jackson's court to make sure that LoTR part 2 can displace SWep2:AOTC, should it rise above LoTR:FoTR. With acting like Sean Bean's, it's no wonder that LoTR:FoTR has been so successful (admittedly, that was not the only factor by far), but LoTR part 2 will not have Sean Bean's acting to rely upon. Luckily, the cast is filled with other talented and well-performing actors. (Ian McKennan was brilliant too). Peter Jackson's directing can't be faulted much either, although his leaving out the details of Bill the Pony and his thing about Saruman "joining forces" and not designing his own ring were kind of questionable.
2DUP * ;
The problem is that there are lots of newbies who recently began voting on IMDB hence this "all new - all beautiful" effect this had on the votes.
;-)/VHS/Betamax... ).
Now, I'd be curious to see if it'll still be at the same place in several months whenever an even more over-hyped blockbuster will have taken place.
Don't take me wrong, I am not flaming whoever for this choice but I firmly consider that there should be a separate voting booth for the film which are less than 2 years old (IE: which are either still playing or not yet available on DVD/LD/DivX
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I went and saw LoTR last Wednesday and loved every minute of it. It was the latest showing at 10:30PM, and the theater was still pretty crowded. Taking into consideration that I live in Hawaii in a relatively low population area, that means that the word is out on how good this movie is.
I went to see it by myself, so I had no one to discuss it with, but as I was leaving, I glanced over the people I had watched it with. Most were staring off into the night with eyes gleaming, remembering. The frightening Nazgul, the oh so beautifully rendered Balrog, the horror of Boromir's betrayl, and the stern stuff that hobbits are made of.
Since seeing the movie, everyone I've spoken to it about has been heaping praise upon praise on it, and it completely deserves it.
I've also been following its rise on IMDB, even contributing my vote (10). When I voted, it was rated at 9.7, and listed at #6. If a movie deserves to be #1, this would be it.
-- Dan
I felt really, really let down after seeing Dungeons and Dragons (ack!). After seeing LotR, I felt redeemed. If you haven't seen it yet, go out and do so! It is truly an excellent film, and worth the money for the ticket.
FYI - CNN says it's already made $73.1 million in the U.S. and Canada alone!
"We meet again Mr. Anderson, er uh... Gandolph!"
I think besides the fact that Lord of the Rings fans tend to be fairly computer-literate (which will skew any online poll ;-) ), I think you have to remember that 2001 has not been a good year for movies in general.
Movies like Moulin Rouge, Memento, Mulholland Drive, and a few others have a lot of quirks in them that makes them not completely acceptable by the broad general public. High-budget movies such as Pearl Harbor did not live up to their expectations. And Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone made most of its money in the first few weeks just to satisfy the pent-up demand from all those young readers of the Harry Potter books (it's a good, but not a great movie).
I think in the end, 2001 will be the year that only two movies will have good box-office take over a long period of time: Shrek and Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring.
And no, seeing Casablanca once on your local PBS station does not qualify you as an expert on the history of moving pictures. The only way to become an authority is to view several thousands of movies whose release dates are balanced across the first 100 years of movie making. Only then can a reasonable judgement of what is really "the best" be offered.
NOTE: I've read the book about 15 times over the years, so I'm not exactly a casual LOTR fan, but nor am I a rabid "Gandalf is God" fan.
One of the very few negative reviews I've found expresses exactly my feelings about the movie.
Basically I thought the film was OK as big superproductions go, but I was disappointed that it doesn't add anything to the book. On the contrary, it seems to replace most of what's good with tired old Hollywood shticks: meaningful glances, silly special effects, poor character development, ugly sets (the Elves' residences are especially disappointing), and so on.
There's a very few things I liked: the Hobbiton sets, Bilbo and Gandalf smoking a pipe, the grief-stricken fellowship outside Moria, maybe a few other things. The rest seems like a big waste to me.
I feel Hugo Weavings performance in lotr was very similar to that of the Matrix (playing Agent Smith). The logical answer is that he was indeed playing an agent, and middle earth is either a patch for the matrix or an earlier firmware revision.
The most dramatic thing here is that Hype and litlle script kiddies ( i hope no one serious got into this it's rubish ). Have one more time ruined a good internet rating system. Next week Spice Girls 24 the return topped the IMDB for a third week !!! ... Ho my God!
.. gosh that was a good one, prefered the books, but who can compete with that ;). Seen it 3 times in 5 days for now. But not ready for the top of IMDB .. best film of all times .. no it don't have what it takes.
Not that i disliked the movie
One of the best films I've seen is the Red Violin. It's rated at 7.9 on IMDB with about 3500 votes. This should be enough to put it into the top 250 but for some reason lower rated movies make it instead. Anyway I'm just bitter about the whole thing....
So don't trust their ratings!!!!!
IMHO, as per
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
This would seem to demonstrate that LoTR has satisfied its target audience, us geeks. It remains to be seen whether it will become a cultural juggernaut like Star Wars that appeals to all segments of the population.
It's worth remembering that newer films tend to achieve high ratings initially. By my count, 33 of the top 100 rated films at imdb were made in the last ten years. The database hasn't been around that long, and young people are more active on the net than older ones, so you're bound to see more votes for movies that have come out recently.
Lists like this are meaningless anyway. They only serve to stir up discussion and draw attention to good films that people may have forgotten.
And no, I haven't seen it yet, but I will.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
Actually, Imdb has become less than useless
as an indicator of new movies nowadays, because
of the massive vote stuffing used by the
studios. Starting with the Blair Witch Project,
the studios have rolled this into their marketing
campaigns. I have seen favorable comments posted
on Imdb even before the movie was officially released by people claiming to have seen the preview.
Magnus.
I have to reluctantly join the 'disappointed with the film' ranks, since although there is much to like there, I think so many detail-related cuts were made that the plot becomes hard to follow. Certainly this was the case with the people I went with who hadn't read the book. Without the detail, I felt it degenerated a bit into glorified chase film.
Loved the first hour though - all of the Shire scenes were done briliantly.
Cheers,
Ian
My wife and I went to see the movie, full audience at a huge theatre. There were 3 shows at the place, all letting out at the same time.
.02$ (or $22.50, if you count the price of admission)
From the conversations people were having and not having, we gathered that the audience reaction was:
1) Thank god I'm out after 3 hours!
2) Well, at least it took less of my life than the book...
3) "I couldn't understand a word any of them said"
I didn't like the movie, personally, and that is largely because it was more or less faithful to the book. A good book != a good movie. Books and movies are very, very different things, and LOTR the movie could have benefitted from some changes.
One thing: did anyone else feel Jackson was heavy handed in re: scaring viewers? It's like he said "I know, let's turn the music down and then have a ring wraith/Bilbo jump out at the viewers!" Note to Jackson: there are much, much better ways of building suspense/surprise than those you used...
My
"LETS KICK SOME ORC!" That was like the bravado of good taste.
Australianus Geekus
I give all the films I see a rating out of 5 on my website and generally start mulling it over before the film has finished. I really wanted to give this film 5/5 but it never felt right, 4/5 seemed like a better fit.
Large parts of the film felt pretty flat, though technically accomplished and well performed. At several points I was thinking 'okay, let's just move on now'.
I guess that for me it was like a date where the girl is hot, you've been looking forward to it for ages but when you're sat in the restaurant you realise that the spark is missing. There's a few pregnant pauses in the conversation so you fill in the time looking at the eye candy ; )
So, very good film overall, perhaps even top 100 material but it does lack a certain something that would justify it's current IMDb position.
Another problem is that the voting scale is too fine for most people and that people tend to be conservatively critical. The number of people voting 2 or 3 is much lower, statistically, that those who vote 8 or 9 becuase people tend to be too NICE when rating a film unless they REALLY hate it in which case they'll give it a 1. A scale of one to four or five would be more indicative than the current scale.
:wq
I've yet to see the film, but I intend to. However, I'm wondering how many people are going to see the film because LoTR is derigeur for the geek crowd? Even when I was a young lad, attending university in the mid-sevnties, the LoTR was required reading for anybody that wanted to fit in with those who spent more time at computer terminals than at their studies. I liked the books, but I didn't think they ranked as great literature.
But, did you know that for a large portion of the source code to Perl, after the usual copyright disclaimer, there is a quote from something by J. R. R. Tolkien?
Yes, there are people who DO read source code, and I'm one of them. It's a great source of education and inspiration if the code is well written and a wonderful source of amusement from code that is badly written.
The books withstood the tests of time easily. These movies, all three, are so well done they will have no problems dethroning any and all movies to ever be made.
Yeah, it was "quite an accomplishment" too, when the IMDB ranked "Battlefield Earth" as the highest rated film of all time, but that was just hordes of mindless scientologists stuffing the ballot boxes. However in this case, it's hordes of..
..oh nevermind.
Amazing accomplishment? Come on. Of those likely to know what the hell the IMDB is, where is is, and how to vote, then actually vote: how many do you think have read Puzo and loved his works? Now, how many voters have read and loved Tolkien? Yes, the movie is good, but better than Citizen Kane (#6), and Casablance (#7)? FOTR voting at IMDB is a byproduct of the quality of the book rather than the move, and I'd describe that as "disappointing" rather than "amazing".
Oops, looks like you're right... still, though, the whole scene *was* changed quite significantly, especially with regard to the ring Saruman was designing, and his change from the White to Saruman "of all colours" (not even mentioned).
Also, the details of Bill the Pony were almost completely neglected.
Still, though, I am glad that the movie has earned top position on IMDB. The faults that it had were trivial in comparison to the brilliance of the adaptation itself.
2DUP * ;
I'll be modded to oblivion for saying this, but any movie list that puts Star Wars even near such masterpieces as Casablanca, Godfather and Dr. Strangelove is invalid, IMNQSHO.
Although I don't think FotR belongs in the #1 slot (and it'll come down, I'm sure), it does look much more at home with the three movies I mentioned, unlike Star Wars. I haven't experienced such emotional response to a movie since seeing the Green Mile, and I've read the book, twice, so I knew what was coming.
Peter Jackson et al. gave us a masterpiece that is not put to shame when compared to classics. It is always an exhilarating experience to see someone produce a movie with such uncompromising passion and pure fervor in times where bottom line is usually the only thing that matters.
"We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer
Sure, why not?
Saw the flick on Saturday, and liked it very much, tho my only gripe was when they played the dramatic music it was really overdriven, at one point drowning out character dialogue lines. Hope they get that fixed in the DVD version.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think PJ's FotR is overrated, but I think it deserves to be. Even though the movie severely abridges the story, it's also getting many people to read the book, which is selling 400% better this year than last year. The ideal is for the movie to teach all newcomers everything there is to know about Middle Earth and make them excited about it. The movie hasn't accomplished that, but it's done the next best thing.
It seems that every genre gets overrated at least once. Star Wars, Jurassic Park and Matrix were overrated high-tech action movies, Gone With the Wind and Titanic were overrated expensive action-romance movies, Disney makes overrated cartoons, and now PJ's FotR is an overrated swords and sorcery action movie.
If every genre is destined to be overrated at least once, swords & sorcery genre might as well get it now. If it causes audiences to read the best book in the genre and movie-makers to make more other-worldly movies, then I think it's succeeded.
The person cast as the hobbit looks a bit *too* much like a girl... Isn't he supposed to be a smelly hairy little man? Wouldn't This Man have been a better choice?
The movies special effects were done on linux systems.l They were not done with MSpaint like Billy Gates III wanted. So they gave a bad review. Plain and simple.
What's amazing about it? The Internet still has disproportionate number of middlebrow geeks with precious little cultural knowledge. Of course they'd think LoTR was the best movie ever made.
For balance, I gave it a rating of 1.
This is more an exercise in demographics than anything. Obviously, things that interest the incredible number of vocal techies will have a disproprotional effect on voting. Remember all those ZDnet, Cnet, and CNN polls you stuffed about Linux?
Over time I'd guess this will fall lower, but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie.
And the greatest accomplishment of all is getting all the drooling slashdotters to pour their money into AOL-Time-Warner. Don't forget, if you pay the ticket-taker to let you in without a ticket, you don't give any money to AOL (though I discourage this illegal activity).
How many people vote for a film
... boy was I dissapointed - the words "extremely" and "boring" come to mind.
1) Because they think it's good
2) Someone else thinks its good, and they want to be seen in the same light.
I haven't seen 50% of the top 10, I have seen Godfather, Godfather 2, Citizen Kane, Star Wars, & LoTR.
But it gets me eevry time *why* is Citizen Kane considered an all time top 10? Have the people who voted for it actually seen it? I bought it because of the hype
Sorry for being a philistine, but it seem to me people vote for "old" films because they think they should, because they are supposed to be classics.
And if you reply to this also I want a synopsis that explains why Citizen Kane is good and why I am wrong, just so I can be shown the error of my ways.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
It got 5 vampyre teeth.
-------------------------------------------------
charlton heston is more of a man than yo
and web polls don't even measure the opinions of those with Internet access, they measure the opinions of people who spend LOTS of time on the Internet.
Some fantasy and SCI-FI fans seem to have a bizarre sense of competition with other categories of movies and entertainment. They are hell-bent on defending their preferred choices of entertainment because they are so different.
Is LOTR good, a surprisingly wide variety of people (i.e. sci-fi/fantasy fans and non-fans alike) think so. Is LOTR the best movie ever produced, I doubt it. Will film scholars think so, probably not. Do sci-fi/fantasy fans feel the need to go completely overboard in praising the movie, apparently so. Why?
There are techie people and there are sci-fi/fantasy fans. While these groups are certainly not mutually exclusive, they are not completely inclusive either.
While I enjoy many sci-fi movies, I cant stand fantasy. I feel like it's the kind of thing you have to have been into all your life to get anything out of. It has this "secret society" feel about it that keeps non-devotees out.
I dont read sci-fi/fantasy novels, my reading tastes tend more towards biography and other non-fiction topics. What fiction I do read is military in nature (e.g. Clancy) but I dont feel the need to dress up to enjoy a movie.
It is just, if i remember it correctly, that they save Bill the Pony in Bree from starving. And Sam Gambdschi is very close to the Pony. When he has to drop it at the gates of moria he is very upset...but, do yourself a favour and read the Book...;-)
Lispy
I just wish someone with a big budget would bring the Nibelung's Ring to the screen, perhaps taking Wagner's model but not necessarily filming it as an opera cycle - though that'd be nice in my book! The characters and sub-plots are so much richer than Tolkein's faux-mythology, and no less fantastical.
Much as Fellowship of the Ring was a breath-taking visual experience, its plot struck me as rather thin in comparison to the Nibelunenlied or Wagner's operatic Ring trilogy. Stripped of the long scenes of (necessary!) explanation the film could have been summed up as "hobbit and chums go from A to B, get chased a bit, go from B to C, get chased some more, some die, etc." All shot in magnificent scenery (real and virutal) and with fine direction, granted.
The fact that Tolkein's books were written in splendid English made the original a "classic" serial novel, of course, but that does not necessarily make for a classic film plot. Tolkein's prose (so essential to the books themselves) wouldn't translate well to the screen and, to the director's credit, most of it was left out. What remains however is a kind of pumped-up "Wizard of Oz", albeit much scarier.
I just feel that an opportunity has been missed here - although believe George Lucas has been pencilled in to produce the stage effects for Wagner's Ring in Los Angeles. Perhaps he'll take up the challenge?
The age of the film should be a weighting factor in its ranking. The fact that the Godfather was a 25 year old film should be meaningful.
It's not just a case of geeks happening to be the target demographic, and online, so, there you go.
Rabid fans of any film/record/whatever tend to vote early and often. Why are LOTR viewers so rabid? Who cares. Point being, they're rabid. The millions of people who love The Godfather aren't as rabid, won't vote as often.
I was as rabid about the original Star Wars when it came out as many of the LOTR fans are about LOTR. However, over the years, having seen hundreds more movies, I've lost my rabidity and must say that The Godfather, Citizen Kane, heck, even Clockwork Orange, are way better films than Star Wars.
We just happen to have an immense population of people who are easily inclined towards fanaticism and who are able/willing to express this in an online vote.
To whoever doubted Citizen Kane's quality; yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But to see why it's so good, it would be good to compare it to other films of its day, to see why it's different than the other million black-n-white films from back then.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
While there have been some posts highlighting the fact that the IMDB rating is only representative of those individuals with web-access, I think this doesn't fully address the limits of the IMDB ratings and how in particular they may not accurately reflect this film.
Specifically, the IMDB ratings are the product of those individuals who care enough about a film to take the time to enter a rating. It is likely to contain significantly more strong positive or negative reactions and far fewer moderate reactions than other means of statistical analysis. This can produce skewed results.
Furthermore, to make use of the old 'geeks and dungeons & dragons/tolkienesque fantasy' stereotype, while it is highly doubtful that Hollywood would produce a film with such a small target audience, the IMDB is particularly biased towards this group. In my experience, there is some validity to the claim that computer 'geeks' have generally had a higher level of exposure to fantasy novels and have had more opportunities to form opinions based on this exposure. Tolkien, at least within the circles I frequent, has always been a favourite of computer professionals. While these are not the only people who will see the film, they are the group most likely to head home and make use of an online rating service to make their opinions known and to have the tools available to do so.
To summarize my own rather rambling post, I think there is some justification for the belief that those people who are both willing and able to use the IMDB rating system may be bias through their own background and interests to grant this movie an abnormally high rating.
Before I conclude, however, I would like to say that I did enjoy the film a great deal and would not hesitate to say that it is one of the better films released in recent years, though not the best ever.
"Be proud to be a fighter" - Martial Arts Adage
Yeah, but there's new people coming of age all the time. Don't expect a generation or two from now people to know what the Godfather was about. It's all subjective to the time a large population saw it. The GodFadda may have been the event movie of a generation and that generation (whoever said this was even a scientific or even pure poll anyway) votes. Ask 18-30 year olds what they like and they'll give you something else.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually in the book he insisted he had become Saruman "Of Many Colours".
Yes, but Peter omitted that, and many other important items, from the Saruman scenes, that is what I was complaining about (well, not really complaining, just pointing out... in an otherwise brilliant adaptation, it's hard to fathom why Peter changed that particular part of the story when putting in something more along the lines of the original wouldn't have taken up much more air-time and would have added extra depth to the movie itself)
2DUP * ;
On the contrary, Sauron's fleeting appearance on screen was one of the true highlights of the movie for me - really just a glimpse of Jackson's vision of the Dark Lord, substantial enough to terrify, but brief enough to still leave much to the imagination. The scene where Isildur cuts the ring from Sauron's hand is essential to telling the story of the ring - how is he supposed to do that without showing Sauron in battle???
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
LotR was a decent movie, with great special effects, scenery, and cinematography. But the storytelling was rather poor. After the fellowship leaves on its journey, the movie is two hours of barely related events which are fun to watch, but meaningless in terms of advancing the story. There's no sense of progress, not really any background explanation of the places and people they come across. A good movie should NOT require you to read the book it's based on to follow the story!
Essentially, I feel this was a (successful) attempt to put readers' favorite scenes from the book on film, and to do it in a very expensive way, and to make a lot of money off that hype. But I think it fails at being a great movie on its own. This was definitely better than The Phantom Menace, but it is far from being the best movie ever.
A movie called 'Attack of the Clones' will never be #1 on IMDB.
This movie should be done over and this time it should not go to the theaters. This movie should be done as a television series so that there would be no need for a narrative that lasts 30 minutes. I would prefer to see less special effects but actually more of the play. Shooting this movie for theater viewing forces the movie to be only 3 hours long but this means missing out too much detail and missing even one detail in this movie (book) is too much. Tom Bombadill is at least one character that was dismissed, since it is interpreted by many as an unnecessary and a weird character and not too much action happens with him. Imagine, he takes the ring, puts it on and what? NOTHING happens, the Ring cannot do anything to him, he is above the Ring. Of-course many articles were written on the subject, some believe that T.B. represents the oldest and most powerfull God that lives on Earth. Well, is he and his wife (the daughter of the River-woman of Withywindle) are worth being at least mentioned?
You can't handle the truth.
Gandolf better watch out. I don't think the family likes someone having more rank then they. He'll be sure to get whacked soon.
-- it's #1 with women on imdb, which means it's not just male geeks voting;
-- the external reviews have been very good, so it's not just sci-fi-fantasy types lauding it;
-- if you look in the top 10 grossing films - 6 of 10 are sci-fi in both the us box and worldwide box - no other genre is close;
-- i've always been a sci-fi fan, and a tolkien nut, and have always deferred to mainstream films when it comes time to high praise - i was glad annie hall won best pic in 1977 - star wars deserved technical awards, but was not the best film made that year...
-- but this has me thinking - sci fi movies are great entertainment and make for outstanding cinematic experiences - this stuff makes good movies in a more rounded way than i'd imagined.
-- now if only hhgg can still be made, we'd have the best of all worlds! as funny as anything that won an oscar, just techie enough and honestly good plot/story arc/characters, all that good stuff.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Is LoTR the best movie ever made? I wish I could tell as I carry so much baggage from the book into the theater. Because of the place the book holds in my heart I cannot rate the movie objectively.
I'm a long-time fan of the books; I first read it in the 60's when it was originally published in the US. My wife does my one better - she actually bought a copy from England when it came out in the 50's (yes, she owns a First Edition).
I really looked at the production of the movie with great trepidation because I felt that there was no way that a movie could do full justice to the book, and given the material it is likely to be a disaster.
I was right and wrong - it doesn't equal the book. LoTR is a masterpiece of storytelling that cannot be fully translated to the screen. Yet it was not a disaster at all! - there were large parts of the movie that I really enjoyed.
All in all I think this movie is very impressive. It far exceeds my expectations, largely due to the terrific casting (only Elrod failed to carry off his role) and segments such as Hobbiton and Moria that carry off the flavor of the book exceedingly well. Parts are less good, however that is true of the book, too.
All in all I cannot imagine how a better job could have been done with this material - and I am eagerly awaiting the next two installments.
Now those who I'd imagine being, not quite on the other end of the scope but far enough to make a point, are those who see or read something and immediately need to talk to others about it. I'm referring to the people who will watch a movie and within five minutes hop onto IMDB (or Yahoo, etc), reading what other people have written about the movie before even coming to their own conclusions.
What are the other movies on the top ten? There's Citizen Kane and Casablance, both from the '40s (gathering ~30k votes). There are a few from the '70s (Godfather-44k, Star Wars-68k), and then the more modern ones (Memento-20k). With the exception of Memento, all these movies have been around a few years, and people have had time to think about them. To be quite honest, seeing a movie a dozen or more times can give quite a bit better impression of it then, say, seeing it on opening night.
Also, reiterating what some previous posts have stated, a lot of people who just saw LOTR might not have had a chance to see Casablanca or another, so how can they vote on it? This is, of course, one of the ways IMDB can be seen to be flawed and statistically skewed. But then, if people are rating movies (even new releases) on IMDB, that means they are at the site, which opens the door for them to "accidentally" stumble across an old classic they might not have known about. Maybe then they'll see that movie, and come back and rate it. And the more this happens, the more accurate the ratings become.
This also changes as a wider variety of audience sees the film. Many people I know (my parents, for instance) rarely go to the theatre, but if something looks good they'll rent it. Perhaps we'll get that vote, perhaps not, but its gonna be at least a few months (assuming LOTR doesn't stay in theatres for longer than that :p). But they're surely not going to rate it until they see it.
Now how long has LOTR been in the theatre? A bit over a week... given it's buildup hype, it might flag in a few dozen k votes. But the more votes there are, the more accurate the rating will be (it's called the "law of large numbers"). So let the wave of movie buffs vote on this for a few weeks, then vote on the next big movie; while they're busy voting on whatever, a whole new audience will begin voting-- perhaps a bit more thoroughly this time-- and LOTR will fall into it's rightful place.
Has there ever been a movie that's been "as good" as the book?
Absolutely. Off the top of my head, and I know I'm missing a bunch:
Kids, ask your parents for Jar Jar Smeagol(TM) this Christmas! You'll love this cuddly proto-hobbit in all its uncorrupted-by-the-ring-yet glory, and its distinctive speech "Yousa gonna give us the ring- it's-a our birthday - and it's-a our precccccioussss..."
In stores now, hurry!
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Whether this was the best movie ever or not, I think that there is no competition for it in the fantasy genre. The only movies that have a prayer of competing are:
Dragonslayer (reigning champ finally unseated)
The Dark Crystal (very cool, but ulitmately just puppets)
Excalibur (honorable mention)
Willow (not enough cool monsters)
Conan the Barbarian (ah-nuld)
Beastmaster (kitschy)
Clash of the Titans (uber-kitschy, outdated special effects)
Am I missing any? I can't think of any other half-decent fantasy movies that are even playing the same game here.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie.
:)
Its still mostly nerds on the internet, they seem to like that kinda stuff
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Eat shit, 100 billion flies _can't_ be wrong !
In related news, Windows(tm) still has 98% of the desktop computing market.
The one detail I really missed while watching the movie was Boromir's horn: It wasn't split in his fight to protect Merry and Pippin from the orcs! For me, that was a powerful symbol, and it wouldn't have been hard to have put it in.
Try this one - the movie is a danger to your soul!
LOL
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It's true -- I'm the only geek left who hasn't read Lord of the Rings. I've read many more O'Reilly books than science fiction novels. But I am an avid moviegoer -- I LOVE movies.
I went into LotR with an open mind. Having never read the books, I really didn't know what to expect. From the opening sequence, I was enthralled.
Several things struck me about this movie. First and foremost, it takes itself seriously. I'll never be able to watch Phantom Menace again, because LotR does what PM should have -- presented a serious and dark tale of myth.
After seeing LotR for the second time, I find it curious that so many people complain about character progression. When your last impression of Sam and Frodo is of them walking off together, and then you see them at the beginning of the movie again, the change is stark.
The special effects were fantastic.
The acting was fantastic.
The dialogue and pacing were fantastic.
The last action/adventure movie I saw that was this good was the Matrix, period. For three hours I was swept away into a different land with vivid scenery, odd creatures, and a compelling story. I can't imagine what more I would want from this movie.
Best movie ever? If Towers and King turn out just as good, then I believe the trilogy as a whole is worthy of such consideration. It's certainly not a cinematic masterpiece like Citizen Kane, but if you were going out this weekend, which movie would you rather see?
Fellowship of the Rings could be described with one word that I rarely use but is completely apropos: epic. How many other movies can claim the same?
What if I gave you three dollars? How much? Thr-- four dollars? Keep talking, I'm listening.
This gives great credit to anybody - adapting a work of such linguistic depth and complexity, with so many characters and so much plot, even into a 9 hour trilogy of movies is not easy, and though we don't all agree with all the storyline cuts and modifications, these people deserve the money they are making from the film for such a good job done.
However, while you are reading, let me give my two cents of things I didn't like, cinematically and directorially about this movie: the atrocious use of music in gaudy fashion, trying to push audience emotions around to make up for mediocre acting in some scenes. It was just overdone - music is fine and necessary, but in a good movie you should barely notice it, unless it's really appropriate in a scene. In LoTR:FoTR I noticed it on several occasions, and in a bad way and it made my cheese-factor detector kick into high gear. The other thing that greatly diminished the experience for me was the overly sappy filming of the scenes at the end of the movie. Elijah Wood is not a great, emotive actor. Long face shots of him with tears flowing trying to look like he is distraught are just not engaging in cinematic form. I saw the audience squirming in their seats in the last 3-4 minutes of the movie last night (the second time I was seeing the movie by the way). While you can't change the division of the movie into three parts and keep to the book, you have to do the best you can to at least make the ending _feel_ more engaging.
Reports on The One Ring indicate that several scenes that are known to have been filmed have not appeared in the final movie cut.
Examples include some of the way from Bree to Rivendell, the scene where Aragorn and Elrond talk about Narsil, and the scene where the Fellowship parts from Galadriel. All of these appear on some of the merchandise (cards, stickers - I don't remember exactly which), but they're not in the movie. A particular favorite of my is the lake they see when they depart from Moria. Just as I managed to think "Kheled-Zaram" - the Fellowship entered Lothlorien.
Obviously, these scenes have been filmed (there are stills from them), so they must have been cut out because of time constraints as some of the less important detail. It occurs to me that they could integrate well with the plot as it is. So I just hope they will come as a part of the DVD (and not just as "director's trash", but rather as a part of an alternative viewing sequence.
Nothing overly witty to say, I suppose.
http://pebkac.net
LOTR has been at the top spot on IMDB since at least friday. That's 2 days after it's release... wow.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
Nope, that's a real movie. Try a Google search.
Roeper hated the LotR:
One of his problems with the movie:
The ending!
He was upset because they did not change the ending on a 45 year old classic.
I miss Siskel!
LOTR is a visionary masterpiece. Every frame could be frozen and framed and look great on any wall of mine. There is no question that the camera work is simply revolutionary, from the vertigo-enducing dives to the slow pans across the vast landscapes.
It is however, a very Cliff Notes friendly version of the plot. I'll take two instances here, and let you decide the rest.
1) Bill the horse. One of my favorite characters from the book is undoubtedly cut to shreds by the film. I don't know why they even bothered including the five-second scene of Sam and Bill. Maybe simple nostalgia from Jackson and possibly trying to give Sam some type of emotional grounding since his only other character scene was dancing with Lucy in the first moments in Hobbiton.
2) The Aragorn/Arwen romance. I have no problems whatsoever with this type of story manipulation, and I am glad that Arwen got such a prominent role in the film (and undoubtedly in the next two as well). But this romance is forced, with the simple gestures and "remember how we met" dialogue not enough emotional foundation to give them the effect that is needed.
These are just two examples, there are plenty more. The word is that Peter Jackson's first cut of the film was 3 hours 30 minutes. It's possible that New Line, scared enough that it was over 3 hours, didn't want to risk such a long cut since the longer it is the fewer showings the film can have. So 30 minutes of character development probably went right out the window.
Must I point out that Titanic, a great flick (despite all you naysayers), is 3 hours 20 minutes, has solid character development, "legs" like you wouldn't believe (ie, stayed on the charts for more than 3 months), and grossed more than any film in history. The hobbits are dreadfully bland, Legolas (especially) and Gimili are bystanders at best. Boromir is given one scene where he describes Gondor as his character moment, with most of the screen time given to the leads. Gandalf is represented best, which is why his (SPOILER WARNING) demise (SPOILER END) is so powerful. I loved the after-Moria sequence, though it was easily apparent that the on-the-rocks scene where Boromir is teaching Merry and Pippin how to sword fight was cut down to shreds, when it really shouldn't have been--after such a huge setpiece, a character-driven segment would've been welcomed.
It wasn't until I saw the film the second time that all of this occurred to me. Having re-read the books this summer to get a feel for them, I knew all the characters and took all of the shortcuts for granted. Though one can still enjoy the film as it is constructed (hell, even my girlfriend liked it), when you read the books the events are much more effecting, bringing to life all of those superb moments you once built in your imagination.
The plot goes as such: a little story, a big action sequence, a little story, a big action sequence, etc. Repeat ad nauseum.
Let's just hope that judging by the immense reaction, both from fans and critics--a rare event indeed, that New Line will give Jackson more leeway with The Two Towers and Return of the King and let him include some truly meaningful character moments.
And damn I can't wait for the LOTR:FOTR Director's Cut!
Now we need a Bored of the Rings movie.
Seeing your bit about Bill reminded me of something I noticed in the movie that bothered me.
Gandalf never says anything about being in Moria before.
But halfway through the mine when they run into the 3 doors, Gandolf pauses and says something along the lines of "This is not what I remeber"
It's one thing to change the story to make it flow better, but that little bit wasn't consistant.
Why `LoTR' and not `LotR'? Why capitalise the `The' but not the `of'?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Keep up to date. LOTR was #1 Friday.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
In "Of the rings of power and the third age" in the Silmarillion, it explicity states that Sauron does ride forth, in the flesh, to fight. I forget why he did it in the movie, so if you're correct on that then PJ screwed up. But Tolkien says it's because Sauron is losing to the might of Gil Galad & Elendil's forces combined. So he kills the two captains, but is defeated in doing so, and that's when Isildur cuts the ring off with the shard of Narsil.
I think they should invoke some Hall of Fame rule, something to the effect that a baseball player can't immediately be elected to the hall of fame, he has to wait something like five years or so then he can be considered. Should be the same with the IMDB top movies list.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I think PJ made a good movie, but boy, he had to take more of a sabbatical than an artistic license :)Still, I really enjoyed it
Why is this (And hopefully the final two) movie going over so well, when we all know that great works of literature suck ass when taken to film (Keep in mind, Harry Potter is *not* a great work of literature. Getting rich quick doesn't make you an outstanding author, nor does it lend any creedence to the quality of your work. (Pop music, anyone?))
One simple reason. Jackson. From the start, he's humbly said, "I can only offer my own interpretation." He's not an arrogant bastard who's trying to show everyone the 'author's view'.
The expanded role of Arwen surprised me. Verily, I must humbly apologize for Mr. Jackson for daring to suggest ten thousand Tolkien fans would burn down his home and sacrifice his pet (Assuming he has one) at the foot of the Dark Lord.
That aside, here's some facts:
Everyone has their idea of what the 'best movie of all time' is. Some people say Casablanca. Some people say Citizen Kane. Some people say Dr. Strangelove. Personally, I say Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but you get the point.
Just because everyone else hates your favorite movie and likes something else doesn't mean it's 'not worthy' to be 'the greatest movie of all time'.
Hell. How can there *be* a greatest movie of all time? Last time I checked, everyone's different (Until Big Brother starts implanting us with chips, but hey.).. Therefore, there can be no such thing as a 'greatest movie', as everyone likes something different - thus, what you think is good theatre, I think is utter drek.
To get to the point: I've seen people who hate fantasy writing rave about Lord of the Rings. I saw Ebert verbally bitchslap Roeper on their TV show because Roeper didn't like it. I see local news anchors actually getting names right.
I see people who understand that Sauron and Saruman are not the same person.
I see a wonderous amount of people rushing out to their local bookstores and libraries to pick up and read The Fellowship of the Rings.
You know what? All this.. Well, they must've done something right with this movie.
When one compares the artistry at work here to anything Lucas has done, it's almost embarassing that Lucas is working as a filmmaker at all.
I just spent my last moderator point before reading this! Damn! Very insightful... especially the steak and vegetable analogy.
Citizen Kane was a fabulous movie. Long, but well paced. It was also groundbreaking in terms of the way in which the camera was used. It really helped further the idea of a visual language. The way in which the camera was positioned or moved actually helped to develop the story. Plot advancement was not just dependent upon the actors or the dialog. The camera really became part of the storytelling process. This was a real first!
Pooty tweet
Nobody who voted at IMDB ranked the movies. Nobody went to a page and filled out a form that said, LotR is better than The Godfather. People voted on a scale of 1-10 based on how good they thought that this particular fantasy-epic was. And they thought that it was better than any fantasy-epic movie that they could have imagined.
The fact that it has become the "#1 movie of all time" according to IMDB is not the fault of either the viewers or the voters. It is the fault of the IMDB for comparing the voted ratings of different types of movies.
It makes no sense to compare the user ratings of older movies with the user ratings of newer ones. After all, IMDB was not around when the classics were released and first appreciated. Nobody flocked to IMDB to fill in "10/10" and click Submit. The core IMDB users have probably voted for it, but people such as you and me have probably never thought to vote on something like Dr. Strangelove. And of course, when IMDB compares ratings between movie genres, we get into an obvious comparing-apples-and-oranges scenario.
So why should we put any stock into the Top Ten movies as selected by IMDB ratings? I think that we shouldn't. The IMDB is a wonderful tool to tell us how much we might like a particular movie, based on the people who have seen it and thought that they should vote for it. But it can not fairly tell us how well one movie compares to another, and it should not try to.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
If I see "Shogun" I think it's a cool, fasinating story. If I see "Roots" that's great, too. If I see LOTR--warts and all (I didn't like it being filmed in NZland. I would have preferred NoEuro.)--I positively GLOW with excitement! That's because my ancestors are from NoEuro; I'm hardwired to light up when someone strokes my genetic memories. I'm not just being an immature, nutcase, silly romanticist. If you're from NoEuro (basically of Celtic or Germanic origin) you can't help but vibrate at the NoEuro frequency when you get such a strong wack as LOTR provides. Sure, there's elements by and large universal contained therein, but still Tolkien hand-made it for the NoEuro. Go with it. It's more than just "fantasy". It's what C.G. Jung called the collective subconsious trying to talk to you. But as we know, getting in touch with the personal or collective subconsious is fraught with danger. Nazi Germany tried to touch it, and millions died. It's like a pressure cooker, the steam has to be released slowly. (If Huxley's Brave New World really existed, how would you go in and "correct" (socially re-engineer) it?) Cynics may laugh at all this, but I've already been one of the world's most aloof, intellectual, realist-cynics....and it's a dead-end profession--literally NO FUTURE. For starters, check out the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn (or his Web site http://www.ishmael.org). LOTR is a standing call to the NoEuro human to do some "roots."
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
woopsies...major typo...i DEFY the typical techie description..not define :-P
Basically the other extreme of "liking something because it is popular, especially if it is popular with self-proclaimed experts" is "disliking something because it is popular, especially if it is popular with self-proclaimed experts". Both attitudes are extraordinarily commonplace, and both are equally obnoxious. As with most things in the world, the truth lies somewhere in between and you are going to have to make up your own mind.
I never really understood why citizen kane was such a great movie. I mean it wasn't a bad movie, but after I saw it, I was thinking, "and this is the greatest movie ever because...?" I didn't think LoTR was that great either.
So, I agree with your point. IMDBs list is a good guide, but no one should treat it as the definitive list for the greatest movies of all time.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Well, everyone has them.
Personally I thought PJ's movie was far better than the book.
Personally, I thought the Princess Bride made a better book than the movie.
But, that's just my personal asinine opinion.
First, I loved LoTR: FotR. It was a great movie and a solid adaptation (heavy emphasis on adaptation, since no movie could perfectly embody the books, IMHO).
Next, the IMDB has had the "latest and greatest" problem for a LONG time. They've tried to weight votes all sorts of ways to get rid of this phenomenon, and that's why you see Godfather on the list at all. It used to be that SW:ANH was #1 with a bullet and the movie of the week was #2. Why? Because more people were voting every week than had the previous week, and that meant that someone who got to IMDB via a link from some movie site would vote for that movie and that type of voter was in the majority. It just so happened that so many of the minority were united on SW:ANH, that it managed to beat the fragmented movie of the week crowd.
Since current movies are the most popular movie sites on the Web...
So, this is to be expected. I would think that FotR will settle down to somehwhere just below SW:ESB, but who knows.
As movies go, I put it above Truman Show, below Matrix, above SW:TPM, below Rear Window, above Tucker, below Fight Club, above My Neighbor Totoro and below The Usual Suspects. I think that narrows it down pretty well, since those are all movies that I liked quite a bit (all for different reasons).
I suspect that people who have not read the books will rate it higher, though. For example, I rate it below Fight Club because Fight Club wowed me with a very original story. However, Fight Club was also based on a book (one I had not read). If I had read that book, would I weigh the movie adaptation above the movie adaptation of FotR? Probably not, but I don't know....
I just read Fellowship again yesterday, and I don't remember anything about Saruman designing his own ring yet. Later on yes, but not in Fellowship.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
another excellent new movie that is #10 on the list:
:)
Memento
In fact the only other movie there on the top #10 released in the last couple years...and yet still tons of people have yet to hear of it. Now THAT's and accomplishment in my book...
ALL of Kubrick's films, not to mention a whole bunch of other worthy movies, belong ahead of this clunker.
After all the prerelease hype about how true to the book the movie was going to be, I was pissed at how much violence they did to the story. Crouching Saruman, Hidden Gandalf indeed! And WTF is up with Orcs running up stone pillars like so many cockroaches? Here's a partial list:
- Arwen: Warrior Princess. 'Nuff said.
- Aragorn draws his FULL LENGTH sword?!?!?
- Big argument at the Council of Elrond. Never happened.
- Merry and Pippin setting off Gandalf's fireworks. In Harry Potter (a fine movie adaptation of a book), maybe, but here it is gratuitous comic relief.
- The cave troll troll never was never part of the fight in Moria (Frodo stabbed him with Sting and he ran away), yet they devoted a whole fight scene to it.
- Saruman bringing down an avalanche from Caradhras? Umm, no.
- Shadowfax seems to have gone to the glue factory.
- In the book, Gollum doesn't get mentioned until the Fellowship is on the river. He never says "gollum", either.
- Neither Boromir nor any of the other characters (with one major exception MUCH later) touches the Ring.
- Saruman is represented as being completely under Sauron's thumb, which wasn't the case at all.
- Elendil and Isildur look like refugees from a Seattle grunge band. Actually, that whole intro was completely unnecessary and lame. Jackson wasted all the suspense potential of the first half of the book in favor of a big crowd-pleasing CGI fight scene. Bah.
- Saruman shows Gandalf the Palantir before he imprisons him??????? Whaaaaat????
I could provide more examples, but I type slowly and I walked out an hour before it ended...
Look, omitting Tom Bombadil is OK -- that episode doesn't really advance the story too much, and there is a limited amount of time to tell the story. What Peter Jackson did amounts to rewriting the book and trying to win over everyone by saying he took a purist's approach. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining, Mr. Jackson.
I will allow that Ian McKellam (sp?) RULES as Gandalf, and that the sets are really cool. Still, if you want to see a movie that does justice to the book it came from, go see Harry Potter or rent the miniseries version of Dune.
--------------- Murphy was an otpimist.
I'm not sure how seriously I would take this given that these kinds of things can be easily slanted by rabid online fan groups. And I'm sure there are a few rabid fans of Tolkien out there. There isn't a similar online fan community for The Godfather.
I'm not trying to denigrate the film. I haven't seen it yet and have no opinion on it. Just offering yet another reason to remember that these kinds of things, unless scientifically conducted, are meaningless.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
After thinking about it, I'll accept it as the Barrow-Wight scene reworked with the available characters rather than introducing the Barrow Downs and Bombadil (which would have extended the movie even more, while adding little to the story - a colorful side story, yes, but very much a side story).
Actually, this tuns out to be a very pivitol event in the book, but you don't learn that until the very end. The blade that pierces the Nazgul King's leg, that forces him to drop his guard, that get him killed and thus saves all of Gondor (and provides Frodo with the much needed "cover" he requires to cross the dusty volcanic land un-seen), was the blade found in those "side-story" barrows. The blade, after traveling through thousands and thousands of years, after hiding in an inescapable barrow guarded by an undead wight, finally fulfills it's destiny by striking the very enemy is was forged to defeat and thus saving middle earth...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
You have to remember, IMDB only counts regular voters in their tally for the top 250. If a lot of newbies just recently started voting on IMDB, their votes wouldn't count.
...because we all know that the Shawshank Redemption is the best movie of all time.
It has all the features of a great classic:
1. Prison break
2. Prison rape
3. Prison murder
LOTR, while a decent movie at best, has the following:
1. Strangely and distrubingly deformed humanoids.
2. A lot of #1's
3. Magic, which we all know isn't real, and therefore shouldn't be in a movie classic.
4. Elves. Why would anyone want to copy after startrek's spok?
5. Who cares about a stupid ring?
Star Wars - A New Hope
Star Wars - The Empire Strikes Back
Star Wars - Return of the Jedi
Star Wars - The Jar-Jar Binks Chronicles... er...The Phantom Menace
Star Wars - Jar-Jar Strikes back...eh...Attack of the Clones
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
IMDB is actually 12 years old. Read this for more information.
ps. Saying that the movie is crap doesn't mean that you're saying the books are crap. Hence, JRR Tolkien won't crawl up from his grave and kill you. So, it's ok to speak out. Don't be afraid, no one is going to hurt you. ds.
Are you blind? Look around this story- you'll see over a dozen different people criticizing it. No one's afraid to criticize the movie, it's just that *gasp!* SOME PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU DO . Amazingly enough, there are people who liked the movie! A movie that you don't like! Crazy!
I don't think position on this list means much, except maybe that some people get their kicks by clever ballot-stuffing. Just scan the list. "The Sting" is way down at #74. "The Ladykillers" doesn't make the list at all! (To be expected, I suppose, if the list largely reflects the views of humorless nerds.)
I'm really disappointed by this. I'm a projectionist and I was able to see the film [just a little] early (*smile*), and it was by no means a 'masterpiece'.
What Peter Jackson has done is take the intricate plot with texture and character insight, and stripped it down to short movements of conflict. By doing this he has removed much of the overall tension that we experience in the novel. Frodo's flight from Bag End to Rivendell, for example, is one long stretch, and they convert this into 3 movements (the first ending by Frodo jumping onto a raft!).
Book 1 has an on-screen duration of 45-60 minutes, and Book 2 is 120-125. This emphases my point that Jackson's focus was the conclusion of the film (and the dialogue-replacing-sword-fights), and sadly not the experiences of each character.
On a positive note, the cinematography is very attractive and so are the special effects (this, it seems is all it takes to displace epic films).
I have much more to say, but for now: Disappointing.
"amazing accomplishment"? Helloo? This is a geek-targeted movie! Whom goes to the IMDB and rates movies? . . . Hmm.
Interesting thing about Titanic...
In the box office, December 1997:
Paramount releases Titanic on Friday, to a weekend box office take of only $28,638,131, which is actually not bad given the mere 2,674 screens it played on. A Bond flick released the same day does nearly as well, around 25 mil. This is a good opening, but not remarkable. However, over the week, it takes another $24,331,205, and then another $35,455,673 the next weekend. Then another $35,727,684 over the week, then $33,315,278 on the weekend. This trend continued over the next two months, bouncing around in the $25-35 million range both weekends and weekdays totals, until the end of February, when it slipped below $20mil on weekends, and plummetted on weekdays to the (more typical) $5mil range. It then started to slide slowly down toward the $12mil weekend range, with a brief spike for spring break, until the end of April. Then it abrubtly dropped to about $5mil at the begining of May. A month later, it was drawing about $1mil a week, which was pretty much finis. What was unprecedented was: The weekday take was as high as weekend for the first two months (Leno's "housewife factor"?), and; The falloff curve was typical of a solid drama making 20% the weekly gross, not the much more flash in the pan spike and settle of an action film. For contrast, the first three months curve of Titanic (on a by week, not by day, basis) is pretty much lockstep matched by the two week older "Good Will Hunting"... but about five times as high.
How is this significant with regard to FotR? FotR has the potential to pull in a broader demographic than most films that would be reviewed here. It's getting the same kind of fervered reviews as Titanic did (with much better cause, IMO, but I'm biased... I saw Titanic for the effects, and because it was playing and my friends wanted to see it, but I wouldn't have gone a second time if the most attractive woman I knew had begged me on bended knee... not that she would have, being one of the most razor-minded people I've known, and regarding the film as manipulative drek... ah, how I miss her... but again, my bias is showing) and has the potential to create a repeat viewing draw. It seems to be growing in popularity, not diminishing, which is (sadly... my, what fools these mortals be...) unusual, though we won't have a clear picture on that for two more weeks. It has sequels coming close behind it, and they may sustain the excitement a while. It's already a threat to episode II... putting the EpII preview before this film was a mistake, as the contrast is going to diminish the Star Wars film even more (but it will quite possibly actually create a small late boost in viewing of FotR if it's still on enough screens, which could be interesting) and it has the additional distinction of getting a great deal of weekday attention. Even on the normally brutal Xmas week, there's been two sellout shows today at the theater in the mall next to the offices I work in. The first one was an 11:00 matinee. I don't know (only noted this in passing while grabbing something to nibble on) but there's a chance the next (5:00) show is already running out of tickets. It's currently 2:45. And I think it was on two screens, too. Thing is, though, it's not hauling nearly what "Harry Potter" did. That's bad, right? No. Potter isn't making much anymore, not much at all. It hauled, and it's holding, but it was a Monty Haul, or Hall, and those blow over. FotR opened on the (theoretically) worst week of the year for a debut. No, really. So did Titanic. Was that a factor? Well, not exactly... but sort of. FotR is making a lot more than Titanic did at the begining (or anywhere in its run), but Titanic lasted (oh, my aching head, did that stinker last...) and given it's nature, FotR is really not making nearly as much as it would if it were, say, released in May. Initially. That'll change. (A lot more movies were released in December these last three years than had been previously. Go figure.) And if FotR can keep the momentum long enough, it might even get one last upsurge from anticipation of the sequel. TT will be out the same time next year.
I wouldn't say FotR was the best movie I've ever seen, but it is the best one with mainstream appeal, and I'd really like to see it unseat Titanic. Rest assured, however... as a trilogy, it will certainly do so, and more.
-- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
As with most "rating" systems, as opposed to "voting" systems, the IMDB is not-representative (ignoring the whole issue of users are more likely to vote for lotr, and the fact that more people will vote highly nearer to the release of the film). If everyone voted for every film that they'd ever seen, then *maybe* the top 250 would be representative. But they don't have to do that, and they don't necessarily vote in comparison to other films. I gave LOTR a 10 cause I came back thinking it was fantastic. Now I want to go and give Zulu an 11 cause it was better. Maybe a rating system out of 100 would be more representative.. but more confusing.
/. poll?
Now try getting those same people to vote for their favourite film in that top 10. I for one would put LOTR at number 4 (having only seen 5 of those films.. ok, so I'm a neanderthal).. yet on a scale of 1 to 10, LOTR still scores a 10 in my opinion. Maybe this would be an idea for the next
but this is an amazing accomplishment for a fantasy movie. ;)
Or a mediocre one for a kid with a script...
Or a mediocre one for a kid (Peter Jackson) with a script (Fellowship of the Rings)...
This deserves a 3 or better.
epsas-at-inflicted.net
Ha! I've used computers for 10 years (20yo). I've used win2k, win98/95/3.1, mac, and even installed Linux a few times. I've spent the last few months doing php and mysql, and the last 2 years doing HTML work.
But if you had asked me what a tilde was. I would have ask what the f you were on about. You would have had to have said something iike "it's the squiggly thing above the tab key".
My point? I'm not sure I even had one. But it just goes to show...
It's fun to argue about when you're about 12 ("No way, man, Stairway is SO much better than Free Bird!"), but after that, who really cares?
Godfather and LOTR shared one important attribute: they began life as a book, not a movie. While I think LOTR is probably the stronger book (except in regard to character development), the Godfather was easier to turn into a movie. You didn't need to read the book to be familiar with the setting in the Godfather movies. LOTR had to brief the audience on elementary information before it could even start. And it's extremely movie-resistant material- the story is just too intricate to fit into nine hours. (It might be suited to a series- but then you'd lose the budget.) Movies and mobsters, on the other hand, always go together.
Citizen Kane: Oh eat me. If anyone hasn't seen Citizen Kane then they shouldn't read this spoiler: at the end you find out the whole movie has been about a sled! At the end, when Welles has painted his movie into a corner by hyping up this "Rosebud" concept, and it's time for him to deliver and tell us who or what Rosebud is, he has nothing left to offer but... uh... uh... a sled! Citizen Kane did try some new cinematic and narrative tricks, but those are impressive mostly because they were new and original at the time the movie was made.
Strangelove: THE classic Cold War movie. It captured on film the paranoia and illogical thinking of the entire period. The literate, subversive, and cynical humor was the kind you rarely see in movies. 500 years from now, the Cold War will be remembered more because of Dr. Strangelove than anything else. But people don't want to be reminded of the real world's problems when they go to the movies. And since nobody cares about the Cold War anymore, the movie's perceived relevance has dropped. And it certainly never appealed to all types. Many people were profoundly offended by it when it first came out and even today certain personality types don't "get" any of the jokes in Dr. Strangelove. LOTR, for its part, certainly caters to a certain personality type but I haven't met anyone yet who hasn't at least enjoyed it, regardless of whether they thought it was a good movie or not.
George Lucas had clout. For Peter Jackson that maybe the case now, but don't count on it. Thought, as has been noted, the episodes are numbered, and there's a lot of Star Wars fans ready to set induhviduals right (and be instantly identified as nerds, geeks or other sociallly unacceptable people who are capable of thought.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The editors at IMDb, for good or bad, scale the average rating for movies that receive a higher than average number of votes. The details are at the bottom of the Top 250 list.
In general, I support this. Art-house indie movies almost always receive very high ratings, because in general only those people predisposed to give indie movies high ratings take the time to seek them out. Therefore, the system gives preference to movies that receive praise from more viewers.
This means that new movies have a built-in edge over classic movies. Movie buffs will take the time to rate old films, but for the most part people are going to rate movies that are still fresh in their minds.
To combat this, some people have decided to "police" the ratings and give "1" ratings to some very good films in order to bring the rating down. This happened previously with "Shawshank Redemption" and "Schindler's List". Some people have expressed opinions that the former is too long and predictable, and the latter is too sentimental and preachy, but I can't see how anybody can give either of them a 1 out of 10.
No offense intended, but if you think that Citizen Kane was "a movie about a sled", my advice to you would be to stick to Chris Farley/David Spade movies; they're probably more your style. Dismissing Welles' cinematic genius because it was only impressive because it was "original at the time the movie was made" is ignoring the fact that the film has influenced, either directly or indirectly, the vast majority of films that came after it.
"Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With The Wind" were only original at the time that they were made, as well. By your logic, we should dismiss them in favor of "Pearl Harbor" and "Armageddon."
Mr. Valenti is calling you.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I must not have half a brain, then, because I've read Tolkien's works several times and I don't see anything in them that is Christian allegory. I think perhaps you're one of those people that see Christian allegories in all things. The "Christ on the brain" syndrome.
Maybe Tolkien didn't have half a brain either, because this is what he had to say on the subject: "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."
It seems to me that LOTR is almost the opposite of a Christian allegory. There's no rebirth and ressurection here. In Tolkien's world, the magic and beauty is fading away, leaving our shores never to return. There's a sadness that runs through all his works that gives his tales much of their power.
Tolkien was heavily influenced by pre-Christian myths, and perhaps even more influenced by his anti-modernity. Look at the Shire and at Mordor and then think of rural England transforming into the industrial, modern world, with it's stinking factories and dehumanizing labor to enrich power-hungry tyrants. There's your allegory, if there is one to be found.
I'm sorry.. I know I might get trolled or flamebaited for this, but I did not enjoy the movie. I went with my family.. My dad, the only one having read the book, liked the movie.. My mom didn't get it (as always) my sister fell asleep through over an hour of it, and I fought hard to stay awake. The movie was slow, repeated the same info over and over.. the characters were too.. how can I say it.. they put too much emphasis in making their words SOUND cool (like they wanted to sound "authentic/powerful") as opposed to having anything interesting to say. Like for instance, if you had Sean Connery talking.. you'd want him to say something intellectual or something worthy to go with his voice.. not something as plain as boring as "I like bread!".. The characters had cool voices, but the dialogue, blechh. thumbs down.
I really don't know what kind of person would like this movie. Maybe people who are into fantasy stuff? I mean I also know that it's part of a trilogy, but this in itself is one movie.. in its entirety. If the next two were to somehow never come out, how would this movie look? It had nearly no plot and it had a very poor ending.
The special effects were decent but not the best I've ever seen.. At numerous spots throughout the movie you can easily tell what is real and what is computer generated..
I'm sorry I just did not enjoy this movie. I might try sitting through it again when it comes to DVD just to give you LOTR-likers the benefit of the doubt, but I'll be seriously surprised if I am swayed. I gave it a 4/10 on imdb.com (OK i'm probably being harsh, but I had to lower my vote to that because this movie doesn't even deserve to be in the top 10)
I saw it with some of my friends, and not all of them had read the books. Still, they understood everything and enjoyed the movie even more than I did because the changes/addition to the movie didn't bother them. When you haven't read the books, you don't get annoyed when Tom Bombadil is missing or Gandalf is captured in the beginning. The movie is a well-told story. Perhaps you should watch it again.
Silmarillion: The Movie
2004?
Can't wait!
Frodo offered The Ring to Galadriel because it was to heavy a burden for a little hobbit, who never did any stupid adventure-stuff. He saw what it did to Bilbo, and how Gandalf died for it, and after all, Galadriel is a wise elf-queen, surely she can handle it much better than he does and Frodo could go home with Sam and have his 9 meals a day in peace. Saving the world is not for everybody.
I dearly hope there will never be a HHGG movie. The BBC tv-show is quite adequate, cute, funny and british. A remake would not be able to stand against it. It's not an "SFX-movie" after all.
From this point on I don't imagine we will see Sauron in physical form. At least we probably won't know this until Return of the King. So far Jackson's just been showing the eye, and my understanding was that Sauron would have no real form in the end.
Showing Sauron in the beginning was perfectly accurate!
sfc
standing on the shoulders of giants,leaves me cold
Go to
hhmm I don't know, perhaps to prevent evil from destroying middle earth? Seems pretty motivating to me.
If you stopped reading LoTR at the end of FoTR, you would have many questions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on