Best film of 2002 Tournament (1 Viewer)

[Lew Crippen]

I have to agree with Bill, in that the first two parts of LOTR suffers from a lack of character development. The difference is that since I had read and enjoyed the source material, I enjoyed the movies. In truth, I am not sure how I would view them (other than as an awesome technical achievement) had I not read the books.

But the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed the films does not mean that they are not without flaw. I would submit that the positive reaction to the EE edition of FOTR, is because some elements of character development are now in the film, where they were missing before (and as an owner of this DVD set, I agree with what I take to be the consensus).

I also think that there might be enough of a Tolkien fan base to put a pretty big dent into the production costs. The more so, as many of the fans are not necessarily ones who would go to a good many straight action flicks.

 

[Lew Crippen]

abstain

 

[Angelo.M]

...it's fairly obvious that the trilogy was intended to be viewed by those whom have read the books.

Nonsense. Spending $300+ million dollars and 2 years of a studio's effort on 3 'fantasy' films smells to me like they were intended to reach the widest possible audience in order to make good on a significant investment. The vast majority of people I know who've seen the films are, like me, old enough to have had many opportunities to read the books over the last 24-30 years and haven't.

And, by the by, I was bored by a good junk of Fellowship. I thought Two Towers was better in general, but thought the 'back-and-forth' between the various parts of the story was tedious (how many conversations between a hobbit and a talking tree do we really need?).

 

[Dome Vongvises]

abstain
Lew Crippen said:

I have to agree with Bill, in that the first two parts of LOTR suffers from a lack of character development.

As a fan of the books, this is something I picked up on too. What's odd is that it's more subtle in the films (eg. very quickly exchanged insults between Gimli and Legolas), and pretty blatant in the book (eg. long, long dialougue exchanges and thoughts).
However, keep in mind that LOTR was meant as one single work, even in book form. And taken as one single whole, the development does take place.

 

[Bill J]

Nonsense. Spending $300+ million dollars and 2 years of a studio's effort on 3 'fantasy' films smells to me like they were intended to reach the widest possible audience in order to make good on a significant investment.

I think you may have misinterpreted (or I may have poorly worded) that aspect. When I was talking about how the films would "reach" a large number of people, I was most definitely NOT talking about box office success. I really meant that the films would be treasured and appreciated primarily by those whom had read the novels.

Let's face it, audiences love to see movies that are adventurous in nature and loaded with visual effects. If you look at the success of Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Spider-Man, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day, this is fairly obvious.

 

[Jim_K]

Let me stick a fork in this sucker by declaring your winner.......................
Spirited Away
Thanks for playing. Hope ya had fun.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Thanks for the tourney Jim. Too bad (for me) that so many films were release so late in the year that I’ve not had a chance to see them all.
At least I have some more films to see.

 

[Angelo.M]

Great tournament; great result.

In response to Bill:

Bill, you wrote:

I really meant that the films would be treasured and appreciated primarily by those whom [sic] had read the novels.

Again, I disagree. Certainly, people who are fans of the books may feel very strongly about the films and may have the potential of establishing a deeper relationship with them than those who haven't, but not having read the novel doesn't exclude someone from having a visceral, depthful interaction with the movie, and it certainly doesn't preclude one from being able to 'appreciate' it.

Perhaps I don't move in the correct circles, but most people that I regularly discuss films with outside of this forum have not read the novels and 'get' and 'appreciate' and 'love' the films all the same. I've never made it through the books, and didn't particularly think the films were all that great, but I think there's plenty of good reasons to enjoy them without having touched the books.

Interesting topic. Now go see spirited away if you haven't already...

 

[rhett]

Of all the people I have discussed LOTR with, only those who have read the books have said they "treasure" the films. Most other people I know think they are good, but nothing more.

 

[Bill J]

not having read the novel doesn't exclude someone from having a visceral, depthful interaction with the movie, and it certainly doesn't preclude one from being able to 'appreciate' it.

I don't think I ever said that it was impossible (which is pretty significant), but my initial reaction after viewing the film was that it would be primarily admired by those whom had already developed an interest. There certainly was a possibility that I could have enjoyed the films without reading the books, but instead the films just simply did not work for be because I was not interested in the plot or characters whatsoever. However, I believe it would be far more easier for someone that has already cherished the novels to develop a more sincere fondness of the plot and characters.

 

[Bill J]

Of all the people I have discussed LOTR with, only those who have read the books have said they "treasure" the films. Most other people I know think they are good, but nothing more.

That's a good point.

I have had very similar experiences with people that I have met personally (outside the HTF). The people I encountered that have not read the books seem to enjoy them purely for the visual effects.

 

[Brook K]

I know I can't be objective about the movie because of my love of the books. I know the lack of development is there in some areas, but I don't need it since I already know everything so well. I haven't reconciled with how much of a "flaw" this is.

Very happy with the outcome. I'm guessing if we have this again in a few months it will change. Chicago will probably have a much better shot as more see it. Most seem to love it, though I had some problems with it myself.