We all know The Lord of the Rings. We've all seen the HUMONGOUS hype for the Lord of the Rings. We've all witnessed the aftermath of The Lord of the Rings. My question to everyone is: Is the hype correct? Is this a once in a generation trilogy on the level of Star Wars that will change fantasy cinema, even films in general, forever? Also, will these movies stand the test of time, and define a generation of movie goers like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and epics like Laurence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago? Does it rank with the film greats? (Godfather, Citizen Kane, etc...)?

Any thoughts?

Actually, if you consider a generation about 13 years (or is it 16?), and Star Wars was the last major phenomenon of this variety, I'd call it a one overy OTHER generation phenomenon. We'll see. It almost never happened. They originally wanted to squeeze it all into a single film, or two films. New Line showed a lot of guts by trusting Jackson and doing it right.

Oh hell, this easily qualifies as much better than the hype. I really have nothing more to say except 1) Return of the King, all by itself, is the best film I've seen in 20 years; 2) please comment at the directors' site where I discussed other PJ films.

It's Star Wars for a new generation in a sense. Now that all 3 movies are out there and on DVD (though I'm waiting till November when the extended edition Return of the King comes out) it will be easy and lots of fun to see people argue the pros and cons of the series. I have yet to read the books all the way through so I wasn't sitting, watching the movies pointing out stuff they changed; in a way that's why I don't read books that become movies because it would seem to me to take some of the fun of watching a movie.

I think the series is great with well developed characters and not taking anything major for granted storywise. Andy Serkis' contribution to Gollum was remarkable, without Gollum as he is in the films it would have lost some appeal for me.

Itll definitely be remembered as the second Star Wars.

Awesome. I agree with all of these assessments. I think the LotR movies are a nearly unprecedented achievement for film in general.

Most definitely it will stand the test of time. I think it will parallel more so the Godfather trilogy than Star Wars because LOTR is more critically acclaimed and more mature than to have a longevity as a geek cult classic such as SW. The beauty of LOTR is that it appeals to all people and that's why it will last so long...the themes are timeless. And I'm speculating that ROTK's visual effects and production values will continue to impress for years to come as it's other 11-Oscar winner counterparts, Titanic and Ben-Hur.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Member 27:
It'll definitely be remembered as the second Star Wars.

---

Maybe even more so.

Does everyone really feel that The Return of the King is the best of the three? Because to be honest with you, I own all three DVDS (and I'm sure you all do as well) but only really watch the Fellowhip over and over.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Does everyone really feel that The Return of the King is the best of the three? Because to be honest with you, I own all three DVDS (and I'm sure you all do as well) but only really watch the Fellowhip over and over.

---

I would put them in top-to-bottom order as Fellowship, Return, Two Towers; for the books, Return, Fellowship, Two Towers.

I really enjoyed the Shire scenes in Fellowhip. I think thats why the first movies my favorite. the lack of those innocent scenes make "Two Towers" my least favorite.

I'm only commenting here because no one who agrees with me has, and I'm sure that there's plenty. "Return of the King" is easily the best of the series. Now, considering that I'm illiterate, I don't have problems with people disagreeing with me. "Fellowship" gets my vote for #2, but that's more for the mines of Moria than the shire. "Two Towers" falls into third, but Gollum/Smeagol are so awesome that it's hard for me to believe, plus of the three movies, I actually believe that the beginning of "Two Towers" is the best.

Now, if anyone hasn't read Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" and wants to take the word of an illiterate old man, then maybe you should give yourself a break and check it out. You'll have to in college, anyway.

We don't agree often, mark f, but here we do. One Hundred Years of Solitude is fairly serious literature and great art. Like Toni Morrison's Song of Solomon or Peter Matthiessen's At Play in the Field of the Lord, from the same period of what we think of as contemporary lit. And you don't have to be illiterate to enjoy 'em.

But I have a problem thinking about the Lord of the Rings films (or the Star Wars films) as anything other than genre film entertainment. Tolkien may have referred to larger concerns, or even personal concerns in the books, given the historical context that he wrote in, and his professional advocation and passion, but the films are simply at heart children's or boys' adventure in a fantasy context, made possible or "realistic" by CGI and SFX. No different than Star Wars or the Indiana Jones material. Why must we elevate them to something other than entertainment?

Are any of these films better than say A Streetcar Named Desire? Or To Have and Have Not. Or Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil? Or the pleasure of It Happened One Night? Wouldn't you say even Bladerunner and Brazil have more to say than any of these films?

I don't know about you, but the protrayal of the young boy growing up in London during the blitz in John Boorman's Hope and Glory tells me more about anything important than the entire exploit of either Frodo or Luke Skywalker. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wish fulfillment fantasies, but that's what wish fulfillment fantasies are, no more or less. Green Lantern is great wish fulfillment fantasy as DC comics, or Spider-Man for Marvel. They may have great Ditko or Kane art, but we understand what they are. Jaws may be a great suspense thriller, effective, powerful in the ways that skillful filmmaking and great production value can bring to a suspense vehicle, but we understand that it is a "different" kind of thing than, let say, Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea - and I'm sayin' anyone who's thoughtful can tell the difference.

A $50 trick is not the same as being in love and having sex.

i think that if you view the series of Lord of the Rings from a larger perspective than film, as somewhat of a culture phenomenon? (not right word for it), then it isn't defined by a single generation. the books were released in the 50s and people have been reading them ever since. in this sense, the phenomenon spans a much larger time period than just one generation. my mother was the one who urged me to view the films and read the books and shes about to turn 50.

Sure, as part of fantasy literature. CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia has a big following, as does the Tolkien, and today, the Harry Potter series.

All of Lewis' stuff had some serious religious undercurrent to them, and of course Tolkien was a classicist - so while they created children's literature, they bought some serious ambition to the table.

Huge film budget/promotion and CGI technology have combined to take items in the cultural marketplace and turn 'em into popular culture phenomenon. If you think about it, look at the list: Star Wars, Star Treks, LOTRs, Matrixes, etc. they're all phenomenon, of sorts.

How much do we care about, say, the first Star Trek movie?

We get older, and because we're a consumerist culture, there will always be a Pearl Harbor next summer.

Personally, they are my favorite movies of all time. They are epics. They are great. I think they will go down in history as great, as amazing films. They have made more money as a trilogy than any other films ever. Return of the King has made gthe 2nd most money out of any film ever alone. The Lord of the Rings will never die. In my opinion, these are some of the greatest films of all time. They are much better than the harry potters, and I believe they are equally revolutionary and good, if not better than the star wars trilogy.