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 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 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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
-- 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Oh, yes, I think you're right. Been a LOOOONG time since I read that one. And only once... a lot of interesting stuff, but overall I found it somewhat dry and confusing. Of course, I was 14 or 15 at the time. So yes, PJ messed up - the West wasn't losing, Sauron did have a legitimate reason for being accessible. Oh well, details details.
think for yourself, you won't like the results if others do it for you.
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.
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?
Probably because he didn't. He killed his (friend? brother?) to get it, justifying that it was his birthday present (which is interesting, considering that, at least for "modern day" hobbits, they *gave* presents on their birthdays). That would have stretched the scene for quite a long bit, though, and I've already heard from two people that the history of the ring was hard to follow if you didn't read the book, so another kink in the story would have been even more confusing. I would have liked to see the "historical hobbits" and how they lived, distrusting and finally expelling Smeagol from the area.... but that's another "it was over three hours long, anyway" bits that I have no problem losing (but why wasn't the sword carried by Aragorn? Ah, well...)
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
"Um...there is a Dr. Freud on the phone. He's asking if you have his slip?"
I noticed that too - but they also didn't explain that it was the Horn of Gondor, and what that meant, so it wouldn't have been as powerful anyway. Still, it would have been a nice touch for those who read the book. Thanks for reminding me - it's now in my top five "Why didn't they..." for the movie. :) Of course, I'm complaining in this thread quite a bit, so maybe I should mention again that I thought the movie did justice to the book as much as a movie can. I might have made different decisions, but they would have been "faults" too. Overall, I think it's an excellent version.
I think it was another director who said (paraphrasing): "I think Lord of the Rings will be the fantasy Hamlet - each generation of directors and actors will make a valient attempt at translating it to screen, and some will score closer than others". Of course, Hamlet has going for it that it is a play initially, and doesn't have hundreds of pages of dialogue and description that must be selectively cut.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Indeed - as an indistinct shadow or a gleam of eyes. The movie has a brutally obvious closeup of Gollum's face, complete with muttering audio. I couldn't tell if the movie was seriously suggesting that Gollum had crept up to within a few feet of Frodo and Gandalf. If so, it was one of several spatial improbabilities.
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
But it seemed the movie was downplaying the idea of Gollum as a hobbit. The beginning narration referred to him as "the creature Gollum" which made me wince because it's a bit patronizing for a voice claiming to be objective. Had Bilbo held on to the ring for a few more decades, we might be calling him "the creature Bilbo" (or whatever charming nickname evolves from his obsessive mutterings.)
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 think most people in this thread would say "Sauron in the flesh is not a mistake, AFAIK". Where "AFAIK" stands for "As far as I know". Sauron *was* very much a corporeal being, and would have (had he gained the ring) been likely to have become one again.
Most people who complain about Sauron being "in the flesh" as you put it, would say "It's a mistake to show him, as far as I'm concerned". In other words, one of the nice, powerful things *about* Sauron in the Lord of the Rings is not the fact that he is not corporeal, but rather that he is never on center stage - that looming presence that people dare not speak of is much more powerful than he could have ever been had he been described in detail. That's what disappointed myself when I saw him, and I think disappointed many people. Once shown, he can never fester in your imagination into something greater and darker than can ever be shown or described.
Of course, I personally liked the "Cliff Notes guide to the Third Age" at the beginning... the first time I saw it, I was with my Dad, who (despite being a lit SF geek) had never read the series. He said the history lesson helped him know what was going on, he easily recognized that it was a very brief summary of a greater work, and he followed the rest of the movie much more easily because of it. FWIW, he liked it, and said he's planning on reading the books (as he has for quite awhile) to fill in the gaps that he saw... not gaps in plot, but rather little references. As he put it, when I was mouthing Bilbo's Birthday Party speech, and picking out Hobbit families, he knew he wanted to read the series and rewatch FotR by the next movie.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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?
Not only that but In Itchy and Scratchy episode 206 Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylphone, he strikes the same rib yet produces two clearly distinct tones. What are we supposed to believe this is some sort of magic xylphone or something? Geez I really hope someone was fired for that.
Clearly he is making an assumption, but considering all 3 movies are being shot as 1 movie, all with the same people both above and below the line, its a reasonable one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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
First off - a movie is a very different storytelling medium than a (rather long) novel. You have to make some allowances for that. The essentials of the story were unchanged and those changes that were made in general made for a better movie.
Arwen: Warrior Princess. 'Nuff said.
I have to say that this didn't bother me at all. It would be silly in a movie to introduce a character like Glorfindel and then drop him - so you have to replace him with someone who is a continuing character in the story. That person has to be from Rivendell, Elrond doesn't work, Why not Arwen. So in the book she is not a "Warrior Princess" but she is the daughter and sister to some of the most renowned living elvish warriors, a Noldorin elf of importance and particularly high lineage including a great-great-grandmother that with her human husband crept into Angband and stole a silmaril from the crown of Saurons much more powerful boss.
- Aragorn draws his FULL LENGTH sword?!?!?
Bugged me too. No reason for it. I think Aragorn fighting with a (longish) shard of the broken Narsil would have been a symbolic and powerful image. But not a flaw worth walking out of a movie for.
- Big argument at the Council of Elrond. Never happened.
Well there is some argument. A fairly high level of suspicion and animosity is evident in the books between the various races and it has importance to the plot. The movie doesn't have many places to portray this while the book can talk about peoples thoughts and emotions and go on about the sad history of conflict in the various lands the fellowship travels through.
- 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.
Yes Pippin and Merry take on the role of comic relief that is usually Sam's in the book. The humor is more slapstick. But it's consistent with their characterization in the books as impetuous, lighthearted and young. Again how is Jackson to establish these personality traits quickly. He can't just say it the way you can in a book.
- 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.
Please,
- Saruman bringing down an avalanche from Caradhras? Umm, no.
In the book a malevolent intelligence is strongly implied. The movie makes it Suraman to simplify the plot - unnecessary in my view but not a fatal flaw
- Shadowfax seems to have gone to the glue factory.
Jackson is here more acurate to the book than your memory. Shadowfax is introduced in the "Two Towers" Why should Jackson have inserted him into FOTR? Especially since Gandalf is never even on horseback until they get to Rohan.
- In the book, Gollum doesn't get mentioned until the Fellowship is on the river. He never says "gollum", either.
On both points the movie here is again more accurate than your memory. Gollum indeed begins following them in Moria though he loses them when they go through Lorien - though the othrewise almost exact to the book dialogue about pity takes place in the shire. As for saying "Gollum" Bilbo gave him that name because he made that sound - his given name was Smeagol.
- Neither Boromir nor any of the other characters (with one major exception MUCH later) touches the Ring.
Again, a way of using visuals to convey a sentiment that is expressed in the book through reading the characters mind. I suppose to be true to the book you could have "voices" expressing the characters inner thoughts and feelings but that never seems to work very well in film.
Saruman is represented as being completely under Sauron's thumb, which wasn't the case at all.
Again the movie is more true to the book than your memory - In FOTR Saruman is assumed to be and IS in league with Sauron. It is not made clear until "The Two Towers" that he doubly a traitor and is playing both halves against the middle.
- 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.
Yes I would rather they had shaved too but who knows how good razors were in the antedeluvian world of middle earth - though Narsil was sharp enough to give a good shave. The history portrayed in Jackson's Prologue is important to the plot and is doled out throughout the book in conversations which would be rather dry on film - It would have been more like "My dinner with Gandalf" than FOTR. I do think it would have been better to tell the tale in a series of backflashes as when Elrond recalls Isildur not destroying the ring when he had the chance.
Saruman shows Gandalf the Palantir before he imprisons him??????? Whaaaaat????
Though it isn't made explicit in LOTR it is suggested in Tolkiens own unfinished writings that Gandalf knew Saruman most likely had a Palantir. It would not have been a huge secret among the wise. Orthanc was well known to be the resting place of one of the Palantir and it had never been taken by any enemy. Jackson introduces the Palantir as a significant element earlier than the book because introducing it half way through the second of three movie wouldn't work as well as introducing it half way through the second of three books.
You don't quite seem to understand the greys involved here. It's not a black and white "this is the right way". Sauron is not on the front stage in the LOTR books - a powerful thing, and a very good thing. In the movie, Sauron is shown in corporeal form along with a concise history of the forging of the Rings and the Third Age - a device which both deepens the setting of Middle Earth and clarifies it. This again is a very good thing.
The two are very contradictory, and you seem to think I'm saying there's a "right way". Nope. The more I think about it, the more things "wrong" with the movie I can find - that will never mean that I didn't enjoy the hell out of it, will see it several times, and recommend it to people who have both read the novels and who have not. Even if *I* was directing it, I would have many "wrong decisions" to make - hopefully they would all work together to create an overriding "right way" to tell the story in a form befitting the medium *and* the original work. That's why you can talk about a Director's style.
For one thing, I was incredibly nervous about the length - but when I came back from the restroom towards the end of the movie, the entire theater was riveted to the screen. That's why I'm not a Director. But I *am* both a fan and a patron of both works, so I can comment on what was good or bad in both - even when the "annoying bad thing" ultimately serves a very good purpose.
And, setting the fannish view aside and taking up the armchair director's role, I might have had the battle scenes with just people's reactions to a presence off camera. Sauron stepping onto the battlefield, and the looks on the faces. Maybe a first person shot with an armored hand with the ring, and then later, a close up shot of the ring being severed, never showing the actual body. If possible, I'd even test the scene without the shot of the hand. But then, that's from an armchair director. :)
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien