Why so much excitement over LOTR? (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Another Mike here.
Where has it been "explained" that the movie stands on its own?

Still another one here.
By the end of the film (as was true of the novel's first volume), several major developments have occurred that provide an ending of sorts, albeit an interim one:
1. The Fellowship of the Ring (that's the film's subtitle, remember?) has come to an end. The members who remain go in separate directions.
2. A major effort to intercept the ring and end the quest has been thwarted, and the ringbearer has slipped away undetected.
3. Frodo, who has been resisting his role as ringbearer from the very beginning, has embraced his destiny and affirmatively assumed the responsibility to destroy the one ring.
These don't tie off everything, but they constitute genuine arcs (to use the modern term) that the novels lay out and the film respects.
M.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I could easily explain why LOTR is an excellent film without falling back on the "source material" issue, but I already wrote a review last month. It's difficult to convince someone that a movie is fantastic when they already have their mind made up that it's not.

Which is why there are so many movies out there. If LOTR was not your cup of tea, you have more time to enjoy your own favorite flicks.

 

[Trey Fletcher]

By the way, where on EARTH is it that charges $13.50 for a movie ticket????

Scott,
MikeF lives in Vancouver, BC, and probably saw the movie there. $13.50 CDN is roughly $8.50 US.
As for the movie, I enjoyed most of it. Even though I have not read the books, I still expected the ending I got. My only problems were with the opening (very cheesy IMHO), and the constant flight of the protagonists. True to the literary work I'm sure, it just got to be a little exhausting after a while. I was almsot like, "Please, sit around Rivendell and talk some more, I'm not ready for another chase scene!" Just my 1.5 cents. TF

 

[Carlo_M]

Trey,
Funny you should bring that up. In the books, IIRC, they stay at both Rivendell and Lothlorien for a good amount of time, but you can't really take that much time off in a movie, otherwise it'd be four+ hours!

 

[Rob Gillespie]

It's the first of three films, based upon the most popular trilogy of books ever written. This has been very well publicised over the past year or so. The complaining about feeling 'cheated' is beyond belief.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The complaining about feeling 'cheated' is beyond belief.

Also not widespread, judging by the film's continuing vitality at the box office.

M.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I was wondering what all the excitement was about back in the 1960s. Like all hippies, I read the entire trilogy (including all the poetry and song verse) as well as The Hobbit. My flowerchild girlfriend of the time relentlessly pushed me to read the things. All along she knew of my passion for good science fiction and resistance to fantasy (with the exception of stuff by H.P. Lovecraft).

She made me read those books.

And here we are in 2002, and the first cinematic salvo (excepting the Bashki thing) has hit--and I'm still wondering what the big deal is.

I guess I should say no further until I see this first film--and that's going to be when the DVD is released.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jack, it's a big-screen movie - you should try to see it in a big theatre. I am no fan of fantasy literature - you'll find no wizards or unicorns on my bookshelves - but I loved this film.

 

[MickeS]

Jack, don't believe the hype - this movie can wait until the DVD comes out. There was IMO nothing in this movies, save some nice scenery, that made it a "big-screen" movie. I think it might actually play better on DVD.

/Mike

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Sorry, but ALL FILMS, if they're made for theatrical exhibition (and with someone who has a cinematic eye behind the camera), are better seen in a proper theatre setting. Especially one with the sweep of LotR.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Ahh, two opinions for which I have great respect. Which one of you is wearing the "devil" costume, and which is wearing the "angel" duds?

 

[MickeS]

Let me clarify: I agree that ALL movies benefit from a theatrical setting, however this movie to me doesn't stand out as a movie that will benefit from it more than others.
Also, the DVD is said to include around 30 minutes of additional footage (not sure if it'll be in the movie or as extras), and if you're only planning to see it once, that would be an added benefit.
Of course, if it turns out that you love it, you might kick yourself for not seeing it theatrically...
/Mike

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I agree with that last part, Micke! For me, the scope of the film warrants a theatrical viewing.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Now my internal compass needle is pointing in Peter's direction!
(Seriously, I'll ask some friends and see if they might be interested in looking at this in a good cinema. I think it's playing at the Chinese.)

 

[Nigel McN]

you also shouldn't use 'extra footage' as a reason to hold out for the DVDs as there is little concrete information yet.

 

[Scott A.]

If I were to guess as to the cause of LOTR Hysteria, I think a big part of it is that people familiar with the story have seen enough of it to know that the whole thing will be something truly grand. Fellowship is not the best movie ever made, but when the three Movies are completed and viewed as one work, it may be considered that. It may not. Who knows? For me, much of the excitement is in seeing what was accomplished in the first film, and carrying that forward to the next two.

Cheers,

S.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Now my internal compass needle is pointing in Peter's direction!

Good, 'cause I was gonna step in and nudge it. There are many scenes in LOTR that simply won't have the same grandeur on video, no matter how good the DVD turns out to be. It's well worth a trip to the theater. I've seen 10 films in the theater since 12/21, and the two that will lose the most in the translation to the small screen are LOTR and Black Hawk Down.

M.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Well, okay. If the numerous votes on IMDb, the gushing on RottenTomatoes, and the general approval of the HTF aren't enough to get you in to see this movie at least once in the theaters, I don't know what might. From all indications, this movie has worked for fantasy fans and non-fans alike.

Especially the Balrog

 

[Max Leung]

Jack, you should see it on the big screen! The composition of some of the scenes are Kubrick-like in that they won't look right on a small screen.

For example, I never saw Barry Lyndon in the theater...watching it on DVD just emphasizes how many of the shots are impossible to watch on a 40" screen...teeny characters in the center, with a huge vista surrounding it.

Granted, FOTR isn't too bad with that, but hey, you might as well experience it in a nice theater.

 

[Steve Christou]

Jack if you don't see FOTR in the cinema I will be very disappointed in you, and boycott all your threads!!
Only kidding Jack, but if there is one movie you should see on the biggest screen possible its Rings, if there is two, than... its Rings again!
The most cynical, bored, seen-it-all film critics have gone gaga over it, and I completely agree with them, the movie is fabulous, really, I can't find fault with it at all, a superbly made fantasy saga.
Members are entitled to their opinions, but I feel in this case the naysayers should have stuck to 'Harry Potter and the Magic Broomstick', just to be on the safe side.
POSTED BY STEVE'S ALTER EGO, LURTZ.