Slashdot Mirror


LotR Cleans Up at AFI

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

5 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Recency effect? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


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

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

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

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Recency effect? by Misha · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --



      I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
  2. Re:Christians Nerds by ryants · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Lord of the rings is a allegorically based on biblical stories.
    As pointed out by others, this was explicitly denied by Tolkein himself.

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

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

    --

    Ryan T. Sammartino
    "Ancora imparo"

  3. See... here's the thing. by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

  4. Nerd arrogance by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the Slashdot article: Looks like LOTR is a big hit even among non-nerds.


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

    --
    You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".