7 REASONS WHY "LORD OF THE RINGS" WILL RULE!!!

[Tuukka]

Why "Lord of the rings" will be a great movie, possibly the greatest in 2001? Here are some reasons:

1. Great story. LOTR is classic material; an epic, exciting, larger than life story. Without a doubt one of the greatest stories ever written. Peter Jackson has translated the film to screen, and he is a very good writer. Just check Heavenly Creatures, which is written extremely well.

2. Great director. Peter Jackson is one of the best choices I can think of. His film Heavenly Creatures shows exactly kind of visionary skills that LOTR will require. Heavenly Creatures effortlessly combines realism and fantasy with an impressive visual look. Jackson is an excellent character director and gets the best out of his actors. Jackson is not your usual cliched and faceless Hollywood director. He has always thrived for something different and unique.

3. Great cast. A film that combines talents of Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Ian Holm, Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, Liv Tyler, Cate Blanchett, Sean Bean, Orlando Bloom, Brad Dourif, Viggo Mortensen, John Rhys-Davies and Hugo Weaving can't be bad... All those actors range from good to great. Yes, even Liv Tyler is good, when she is in hands of a right director.

4. Great effects. Peter Jackson's own SFX company WETA do some of the world's best special effects. For example the space journey is "Contact" was made by them. Weta has always made photo realistic, well designed effects instead the cheesy, cartoonish ones that are common even in big budget Hollywood films. Also Jackson has said publicly that it's not about the amount of details or about the technical aspects... It's about DESIGN. I definitely agree. That's something George Lucas should learn. A badly designed creation will always look bad, no matter how impressive it is in purely technical sense.

5. Great music. Soundtrack will be made by Howard Shore, who is one of the best and most original composers working today. He has made music for such very different films as The Cell, Seven, Naked Lunch and Ed Wood. The thing about Shore is, that althought he makes very original soundtracks, they are very different when compared to each other. It's hard to notice that they are made by the same person. Shore is able to change his style completely and work completely by the instructions that the director gives. Jackson wanted something unique for the film. Shore is the right person to deliver that. Surely someone like Kilar could have contributed a great soundtrack, but Kilar always sounds like Kilar. Same goes for just about all famous composers.

6. Great Locations. New Zealand look exactly like Middle Earth. They don't have to use som much SFX, since all the locations exist already. New Zealand has stunning nature with it's volcanoes, glaziers, prerias, rain forests etc. A prefect place to shoot LOTR.

7. Big Budget. Money always helps to shoot epics like LOTR. Right now it seems that three films are costing around 200 million american dollars. Since it's more than two times cheaper to shoot in NZ, the budget is comparable to a 500 million american-made film trilogy. It should also be noted that LOTR doesn't have any major stars, so they don't have to spend 20-30 million dollars to actor salaries on each film. They can use the money to films themselves instead.

[Tuukka]

Just to start a bit of argument, I would like to tell everyone why LOTR is going to put Episode 2 in shame:

No matter how good Episode 2 will be, it will still be just fun cheese. That's what Star Wars movies have always been and that's very likely what they will always be. Lucas has promised that the next film will be darker than Phantom Menace, but we all know that it still won't be very dark. Definitely not any darker than Empire Strikes Back. I liked the old Star Wars films and I consider A New Hope (8/10) as one of the best adventure/action films ever made. But it's still just fun cheese. It doesn't make me scared or sad. It doesn't make me feel deeply about it's story or characters. It's just light entertainment, and as such it works very well.

But LOTR the book is a lot more than just cheese. At times it makes you really scared and at times it makes you wan't to cry. You learn to love the characters and you live their emotions with them. LOTR is a dark, mystical, gritty, scary and yet beautiful story. It has potential to be all of those things also on film.

Of course there are many people who prefer light and fun cheese over scary, sad and poetic. I'm not one of those people and that's why LOTR will probably be lot better film in my eyes. Episode 2 is likely to be a film which you'll enjoy while watching, but it leaves no deeper impression on you. LOTR just might be a film which will haunt you months and years afterwards. Just like the book does.

[ANTBond007]

Blah, blah, blah. Who the hell cares about Lord of the Rings? I sure don't. I just want to see Star Wars: Episode II. Everything that's come out of the production so far is positive, and the pictures released have all whet my appetite. On the other hand, that picture of Gandolf from Lord of the Rings had me laughing out loud, and not in a good way.

No matter which will be better (and I'm pretty sure Star Wars: Episode II will be a better film than all three of the 'Rings' films), Episode II will definitely be the better financially. I mean, everyone knows what Star Wars is. Lord of the Rings isn't the most popular thing on the planet. I quizzed several kids at my High School about the movies of 2002 (I counted Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers simply as "Lord of the Rings").

Of the two hundred and twenty three teens I interviewed (and teens will make up the majority of these films' markets), only nine knew what Lord of the Rings was. Of those nine, only two cared about the movie. Everyone knew what Star Wars was, and everyone says they'll see Episode II.

And in response to your post, I'll give my reasons why Episode II will rule:

1. Great story. Star Wars is classic material; an epic, exciting, larger than life. Without a doubt one of the greatest sagas ever. Jonathon Hales has translated the film to screen, and is a very good writer. See his Emmy-winning works of the Young Indiana Jones variety.

2. Great director. George Lucas is one of the best choices I can think of. His work on Star Wars: A New Hope and THX-1138 shows exactly the kind of visionary skills that Episode II will require. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace effortlessly combines science and fantasy with an impressive visual look. Lucas is an excellent FX director and gets the best out of his CGI. Lucas is not your usual and clichéd faceless Hollywood director. He has always thrived for something different and unique.

3. Great cast. A film that combines the talents of Hayden Christensen, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Daniels and Joel Edgerton can't be bad...All those actors range from good to great.

4. Great effects. George Lucas' own SFX company Industrial Light & Magic does the greatest FX work in the world. For example, the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park series, everything in the Star Wars series, Titanic, Starship Troopers....It's about design, and I agree. Jackson should learn that a badly designed space sequence from Contact just does not look good, and it doesn't help that the FX look as though they were created on a sub-Pentium level computer.

5. Great music. Soundtrack will be made by John Williams, who, if not the best, is one of the best composers in the world. He has done the music for such films as Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, The Patriot, Saving Private Ryan.....The thing about Williams is that, while all his soundtracks are made by the same person, they are very different in design.

6. Great locations. Tunisia looks exactly like Tatooine. Spain looks exactly like Naboo. They don't need to use so much special FX, because these locations already look perfect. The FX are only for subtle changes to cities. Tunisia, Spain and Austalia have everything...all great places to shoot Star Wars: Episode II.

7. Big budget. Money always helps to shoot epics like Star Wars: Episode II. Right now it seems that the three prequel films will end up costing around $440 million dollars. It should also be noted that Episode II won't have any major stars, so they can use smaller salaries and up the budget for other aspects of the film.

And in closing, what is Lord of the Rings, exactly? I had never even heard of the story until The Fellowship of the Ring was announced.....

[Tuukka]

I have to admit I don't think that box office results are in relation to quality of film. And I don't care how many teens in your school know LOTR. What does it have to do with the quality of a film? Nothing. I agree that Episode 2 will likely do better financially than Felloship of the ring, and I couldn't care less.

But then your points from 1 to 7.

1. Great Story? You don't even know what the story for Episode 2 will be, so how do you know that it will be good? I in the other hand do know the story for LOTR. I don't consider Young Indiana Jones as a great piece of screenwriting and I don't think many others do either.

2. Great director? George Lucas is horrible with actors. Even he admits that he can't direct actors. Just about everyone in the talented cast of Phantom Menace gave the worst performances of their careers. They were still OK, but I except more from actors like McGregor, Neeson and Portman. As for the visual look... PM had great effects, but cinematography and editing were far from great... In fact they were very mediocre. I agree that Lucas used to be a visionary. But that was 25 years ago. Lucas can direct camera well (New Hope and THX), but he is crap with actors. Great director? I think not. Good, yes, but definitely not a great one.

3. Great cast? Agreed. But unfortunately Lucas is a crap actor director so we can expect everyone to a lot worse than they usually do.

4. Great SFX? Agreed. But I definitely don't agree about design. Contact had excellent SFX design and from the pictures we have seen so far, so does LOTR. PM had good design also, but often it was more about technique than about cool design and great visual style.

5. Great music? Might be. I have great respect for Williams and he is never less than rather good. PM was "only" good, not great.

6. Great locales? Well, Tunisia, Spain and Australia all look very alike... And not as fascinating as New Zealand. But it's hard to argue about this. I guess I agree.

7. Big budget. Agreed. It's wise from Lucas to not to hire big stars, since the film is a star in itself.

...So Budget, effects, music, locales are all in the right place. The cast is great, but unfortunately in wrong hands... And we have a competent, but definitely not a great director... And a script from the writer of Young Indiana Jones. You know what, AntBond? Sounds like fun, empty cheese to me. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but you somehow failed to convince me. And you didn't even comment on the cheese factor of Star Wars movies, which was my main point when I compared the two films.

Comments, anyone?

[Tuukka]

I guess I also have to comment on the popularity of LOTR... I'm not 100% sure about this, but according to my knowledge LOTR is the biggest selling fiction book of all time... Unless you consider The Bible as fiction. I know that many young people in USA don't read books, but fortunately it's a bit different elsewhere in the world.

LOTR has been out for 55 years now and it's still extremely popular. That means 3-4 generations of people. When the film comes out it won't appeal only to teens and children, it will also appeal to middle-aged and old people... Unlike Episode 2.

The last time when there was this much hype for a film that was still one year away... It was Phantom Menace. In fact it seemes that the hype for LOTR might even surpass PM. At least it's going to be in same proportions. I can guarantee that after nine months EVERYONE in your school will know LOTR and quite a few of them are going to see it. Kick-ass trailers and enormous hype are extremely likely.

When the trailer for PM was released in Internet, 1 million people went to see it during the first 24 hours. When LOTR trailer was released, 1.7 million people went to see it during the first 24b hours. Still the biggest numbers ever for a trailer.

Unlike Episode 2, LOTR has a change to reach both popcorn audiences and more literally-minded people. It's not cheese. Even if cheese is popular, many people can't stand it. LOTR is a highly appreciated piece of literary work and will reach audiences that Episode 2 can only dream of.

I do believe that Episode 2 will make more money than Fellowship of the ring. But if Episode 2 blows (which is very possible, if you look at PM) and LOTR will rule, I wonder how the box office results will be when Episode 3 and Return Of The King will be against each other...

I think it should also be noted that Star Wars is a lot less popular outside USA. Big films generally make 2-3 times more money outside USA than they do in the local market. Phantom Menace did around 400 million domestically and about the same money overseas. Star Wars is very american phenomenom and I guess it's a bit hard for many americans to understand that it doesn't have the same meaning or impact outside USA.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-10-2000).]

[R. P. McMurphy]

I'm going with Tuukka on this one. LOTR is gonna have more for me than Episode II (even though I don't know why we are comparing the films other than Box Office success).

George Lucas is a hack. A visionary? No. Star Wars wrote itself. It was a seperate entity looking for a body to fully create it.

I pefered Contact's special effects that Episode I...

LOTR and Episode II have great casts, but like Tuukka said, everybodies talent went to waste in Episode 1. So we'll have to see.

They both have big budgets, so what the hell...

I am more interested in LOTR's locations.

[Tuukka]

I made the comparision so that this topic would have more comments... After spending 25 minutes to my first post I didn't want this to go unnoticed.

Anyway, Episode 2 might be fun cheese, but I doesn't look even half as promsing as LOTR... /ubb/wink.gif

[ban all music]

couldn't have said it better myself, tuuka...

[Parchai]

Hey I'm with you ANTBond007. I really could care less about the LOTR movies. The books were pretty good, but I guess I just never got into them too much.

[ak]

i have just finished reading the superb lord of the rings books by jrr tolkien, and i must express as to how blown away i was by them. i am a real great fan of starwars, but i'm affraid to say that it is not a scratch on lotr. The original starwars , it must be granted, was superb, and i doubt that anything that george lucas can throw up now will be any better than that. peter Jackson, i have no doubt, will bring this amazing world to life in the films of the lotr trilogy, and i think they will become the greatest three films, visualy, to ever hit cinema screens. the cinema screams out for films like this and starwars, i think it is just a shame that people have to compare (which i have already done). people should just accept that these are two totally different films, and will be successful in their own rights. i am immensely looking forward to both episode 2 and 3 and the lord of the rings trilogy, lets just hope they are all as good as we hope they are!

[ANTBond007]

Oh yes, Tuuka, I feel I must respond to the trailer downloads. There is actually a believable reason why the Lord of the Rings trailer had more downloads than The Phantom Menace trailer: The TPM trailer was released in theaters.

Do you see what I am saying? If you saw the Phantom Menace trailer in theaters, why download it on the internet? I didn't. The Lord of the Rings trailer, on the other hand, was internet-exclusive.

[p-diddy]

I am w/ AntBond on this one. Ep II will make more money then any other movie of its kind. On the other hand, I have read lotr and the story is much greater in pulling you in w/ the characters and story. I think that lotr will be an axcellent competitor w/ ep II, but wont't gross 1/2 of what epII will.

just my opinion. pdd

[Tuukka]

I agree it's likely that Episode 2 will make more money, but I'm really talking about the QUALITY of these two films. I don't think box office is in 100% relation to quality of a film. Episode 2 will make more money, because it's the 5th part in extremely popular series. People will go to see it no matter what's the quality. LOTR in the other hand must prove itself.

But if we talk about the trailer downloads... PM trailer premiered in USA theatres, but nowhere else. USA makes about 1/3 of the filmgoing audience for american films. If you take away 1/3 of the LOTR's 1.7 million, you still have about 1.1 million downloads.

If I remember correctly, the trailer was attached to only one film, and only a small percent of the potential Star Wars audience went to see that film just because the trailer was attached to it. Only true fans do that. Many people, including me, were excited about the film, but I would have never paid the full prize for another film just to see the PM trailer, especially when I know that I will see it anyway on internet in just a couple of weeks.

So the even if you count the theatrical release of the PM trailer, LOTR was still a lot more popular in it's first 24 hours.

But one thing that with doubt affected the numbers was the fact, that LOTR trailer was released one year after the PM trailer. Internet grows about 5-10% percent a year, so that affected the numbers. Anyway, no matter how you look at it, LOTR trailer came out as a winner... If those two trailers would have had the their public debuts on internet on the very same day, LOTR would have won.

It should also be remembered that fans on Star Wars are largely part of the internet generation, where as LOTR fans are not. Your grandparents used to read LOTR, but they are not downloading trailers from internet.

Fanbase for LOTR is not so obviously visible as it is for SW. It's simply a book that people read. A book is a personal experience you have by yourself, where as movies are more social experiences. There are countless of highly popular movie sites, movie magazines etc. But books are something more personal. People don't sit in front of their monitors arguing about books in internet, because the whole literal culture is so different from the movie culture.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-12-2000).]

[ANTBond007]

Oh well, Tuukka, let's just say they'll both rule, k? Either way, 2002 is going to be a great year for movies, especially sequels (something is not right about that....). I just hope Armageddon 2 comes out and blows 'em all out of the water /ubb/smile.gif

[Ground_Zero]

Unfortunatly, I don't think we can even attempt to guess at which film will be better at this point. Let's face it -- Episode I was not very good. The characters were poorly developed and the CGI effects generally stuck out like a sore thumb. It was fun -- but it wasn't a classic.

As for LOTR -- it might be promising, but is it setting itself up for slaughter? Let's face it - purists are bound to hate it's inacuracies (you can't possibly cover an entire volume well enough during 2 or so hours) and the hype could just end up letting a lot of people down (a la Episode I)

[Tuukka]

Come on, I WANT TO ARGUE! Doesn't anyone want to argue with me, please...? /ubb/wink.gif

I decided to give Phantom Menace another change yesterday and I just couldn't watch it. The script is really weak. But Pod Race was still great and some of the effects were impressive. I just had to use a lot of fast forward...

...I believe that Episode 2 will be better. Lucas has said it will be darker, which means less annoying kiddie stuff. Jar Jar Binks will have a lot smaller role and Jake Lloyd will be replaced by a better actor. By the way, I think that Jar Jar is a not a bad character, but why did he have to be in every second scene of the film? At times it felt that it was his story, not Anakin's.

People who liked PM, should be happy. There is NO WAY that episode 2 could be worse. If you liked PM, you'll probably LOVE episode 2.

Anyway, I really hope it will be a good film. I have always liked the idea of big budget scifi and fantasy films. So far only some have been succesful artistically, but next year seems really promising:

Fellowship of the ring

Episode 2

Spiderman (Raimi, McGuire and Dafoe. A budget of 100$ million. Sounds promising)

A.I (Spielberg doing a 100$ scifi flick to a story which is rumored to be great. Cast is also really impressive. Can't wait)

Mummy 2 (I liked the first one. Fun cheese)

Of course you can NEVER know if a film will be a good one. My worst fear is that when LOTR comes out it will just be... Mediocre. I can't possibly believe it would be crap, but it might be a seriously flawed film in many ways. I'm sure there will be some good things in it to make it worth watching, but it might be that I wont see it until video.

Possible problems with LOTR:

1. The first film might lack a decent climax. Afterall it's a first part in a trilogy and ends with a sort of cliffhanger. The battle against Balrog could be really cool, but the film has to run about 10-15 minutes after that to separate the fellowhip. It's likely to be an anticlimatic ending with Frodo and Sam starting their journey together. I personally won't have any problem with that, but I wonder how people who don't know the story will react. Will we be hearing shouts like: "That's the worst ending I have EVER seen!". I hope not.

2. The PG-13 rating might cause some trouble. LOTR is a very violent, dark story. They are going to make it more accesible for younger audiences. The film NEEDS a darker edge to work and a bit of gore and horror would do only good.

3. Structure of the script. I have faith in Jackson, but it's really hard to translate a 2000 page story to three films and make them work structurally. Some of Jackson's films have structural problems. It's not his strongest forte.

4. New Line Cinema. They have the final cut. It seems that Jackson is doing a very visionary piece of work and it's been rumoured that every part will run more than two hours. It just might be that NLC don't like he's vision in the end and they cut three one and a half hour long action movies instead of three two and a half hour drama epics.

4. Cheese. So far the only picture that is a bit cheesy is the costume for Gandalf. He looks cool in some pictures, but the newest one... That hat. Couldn't they have made something... Smaller. It looks a bit ridicilous, even if it's loyal to the book. Just like spandex doesn't generally look good on film superheroes, some things that work on books and paintings might not work well on the film. Also Gandalf's robe looks a bit unpractical. Otherwise, all the other costumes are looking really cool. I guess the hat of Gandalf wont ruin the films.

[Tuukka]

Wouln't it be great to see an ADULT Star Wars movie? A scary, serious, intelligent epic scifi film. When I heard about PM the first time, I hoped for something like that. Then it was announced that it would be a kiddie film. I have nothing against kiddie film, but even a film like "Babe in a big city" seems more adult to me. Yeah, it has talking animals, but it's also very serious, poetic and intellectual. A good kiddie film should be multilayered. There should be the slapstick level, but then there should be the deeper, intellectual level as well. Many Disney cartoons succeed in that. Just look at Aladdin. It has a great script: intelligent, hilarious jokes, smart dialogue, wonderful characters, impressive action, perfect structure.

[ak]

hey tukka, i must agree with you on the "adult" starwars thing. i was hoping that phantom menace would be a bit like "blade runner", very dark, very, well, adult! the empire strikes back - darker, in a sense, more adult, and it proved, as it was the best in the initial trilogy. if you think about it, in order for the next two episodes to work, they need to be dark and adult. i will find it an interest to watch and as to how ol'lucas has handled that. ultimately, starwars is an adult story, which has been turned into something "yukky" for kids, which came through especially in phantom menace. i think the "yukky" aspect came from george lucas' direction. if they hoped to stand a chance with audience and critics alike i think the new trilogy should have been directed by someone with more experinence in this area of bleak science fiction, or failing that, irvin keshner!

[ANTBond007]

Tuukka, you'll never see an adult Star Wars movie. They're all kids flicks. Even The Empire Strikes Back, as dark as it was, was made primarily for kids, and it was the same for The Phantom Menace (Which, by the way, I liked, and is my second favorite Star Wars film).

However, Episode II & III are supposed to both be as dark, if not darker, as Empire Strikes Back, so does that help?

[rupert_pupkin]

I agree - Star Wars, althoug adored by many adults(including myself)is, and always will be a kids movie, made with kids in mind. Although I agree that an adult star Wars would be cool, the originally intended audience should never be forgotten

[ak]

i think it would be really cool to see a 15 certificate starwars film, although the films are intended for children, and, it is rather too late at this point in time to change the whole starwars "kids friendly" thing. i can imagine anakin swearing and telling obi wan to stick his lightsabre up his bottom. bottoms should feature prominantly in the starwars films. bottoms bottoms bottoms bottoms. isn't that a lovely word? use it!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tuukka]

I don't think that a more adult approach should necessarily mean more violence, swearing etc. Lucas should just tone down the cheese factor a bit. a 15 certificate for a Star Wars film would be cool, but it would be unfair for kids, since they probably love the series the most and they couldn't see it. Anyway, things seem pretty promising for Episode 2 and I'm convinced that I will like it more than Phantom Menace.

I guess the main reason why LOTR appeals more to me is the fact that the original story is very dark and adult, even if it appeals also to kids. The film version also seems to thrive for a dark and gritty approach. PG-13 films can't have much gore, but they CAN be scary. Jackson has always been attracted to dark, fucked up things in his work and that will suit LOTR.

[Tuukka]

Did you know that Harry Knowles of the www.aintitcool.com (http://www.aintitcool.com) has just gone to New Zealand to see the final weeks of shooting for LOTR? I just read his first report from there and it was really cool. Harry is probably not very objective towards the films right now, but that report made me really excited. I understood that he is going to write a new report everyday.

[ak]

i must say, i have only seen a few lord of the rings pics, but out of the selection that i have seen, i must say i am slightly dissapointed with the look of everything. i saw a picture in particular where Gandalf is leading the fellowship through a forrest. here i expected to see massive tree roots growing out of the ground, with bright green moss hanging off the sides, and massively tall trees, just like the art work on the newest editions of the book, but instead all i saw was pretty normal looking trees, with normal looking landscapes. i hope that a surprise lies instore there and that the landscapes will be as impressive as in the books,but who am i to judge at this moment in time? everyones a critic. i just hope that this isn't a disspaointment that's all.

[Tuukka]

The films are trying to look very realistic, and that means they are using the real landscapes in New Zealend. Of course they add more elements to some pictures and do color changes etc. But in general if you are expecting a more "fantastical" look from the films, you are going to be disappointed.

That being said, NZ has highly impressive landscapes. It's definitely the best place to shoot the trilogy. A more fantastical look could have been achieved only by building gigantic sets, and that would have been extremely expensive.

Personally I LOVE the look of the pictures so far. They have this very realistic and gritty look to them. I like the desaturated colors and the certain darkness they have. It doesn't look like a happy fairytale, more lika a scary one.

I find it easy to believe that many people would prefer to see a more Tim Burton -esque visual world, but I'm happy that the films are not going to be like that.

The point of the visual look for the trilogy is to create a world, which could have existed in our reality a few thousand years ago. Jackson is trying to create a world, which has a lived-in feeling. Everything is dirty and gritty, everything is functional and serves a purpose.

Here is a location shot from the area they are using as SHIRE:

http://www.theonering.net/images/locations/the_shire2.jpg

And here is picture from the trailer:

http://www.theonering.net/movie/preview/images/Picture45a.jpg

...Those locations exist in reality, but I think they definitely have an epic feeling to them. Why bother doing countless of effects shots, when you can use some of the most gorgeus looking places of the world as a background?


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Servo]

Alright, it looks like most of you are looking forward to Lord of the Rings. I'm not. I read the first book and I wasn't exactly in to it, and I'll tell you why. To be frank...Fantasy sucks. Seriously, reading about tree hugging elves bored me. I'm in favor of Episode 2 doing better(And yes, quality wise). The last guy that posted even said that we was disappointed by what he's seen so far. I know, that first guy that posted was all excited because of the cast, the director, the story etc etc etc. Well, dude, this is the first movie...that's based on a book. You're practically taking what was done in a book, and putting it all in the movie. Sure, it has a great director. And it has a great cast. And it has a great music composer etc etc...ever see The Lost World: Jurassic Park? The cast was awesome, the director has lots of ACADEMY AWARDS under his belt, and the composer of the music has got to be one of the best in Cinematic History...but was the movie really that good? NO. But the book rocked.

Now let's talk about Episode 2. Yeah, I'm for it...but I'm also very cautious about it. I'm gonna face the music and come right out and say Episode 1 was not the coolest movie in the world. In fact, I didn't really like it at all. Right, Lucas isn't the best director. Right, the cast was great but sucked...but think about it. Lucas hadn't made a movie in years, he had to start all over again. I'm pretty sure he's gained something from the Episode 1 experience. And c'mon man, how could you say The Young Indiana Jones series wasn't good? That show rocked! And I happen to believe that when Lucas says Episode 2 will be darker, it'll be darker. Episode 1 was meant to be light hearted and...well...childish. Just look at Jar-Jar(How dare I utter that name.). So, in conclusion...I hope Episode 2 will do better quality wise.

By the way...Elija Wood isn't exactly the kind of actor I would cast in...well...any movie. And as for Liv Tyler, she's okay. I dunno. She sucked in Armageddon.

[Tuukka]

Well, Lost World had a weak story. Otherwise it was a pretty good film in my mind.

I think I have to point out that Star Wars is also fantasy. The difference between fantasy and scifi is not which has space ships and which doesn't. Science fiction tells about imaginary worlds based on SCIENCE. Where as fantasy tells about worlds based on MAGIC. Now all the Star Wars film are heavily dealing with magic and have VERY LITTLE scientific credibiilty. Star Wars is more fantasy that it is scifi. Besides, Star Wars borrows heavily from LOTR. Even Lucas has admitted this.

I also think that Episode 2 will do better...

As for Young Indiana Jones, it was a good TV series, but simply can't consider it as great screenwriting... If I have to compare it with a film like Heavenly Creatures, YIJ doesn't have a change. But I'm sure that the quality of screenwriting will be a lot better in EP 2 than it was in Phantom Menace.

Are you kidding me? Elijah Wood has ranged from good to excellent in everything he has been in. Besided he looks like a hobbit. Liv Tyler is a talented actress, but Armageddon is her worst performance... Michael Bay is not exactly great with actors... Unlike Peter Jackson.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-14-2000).]

[ban all music]

I'm with tuuka...those pictures look great. you can't even compare the lost world movie to the lost world book...they are completely different...the plot, most of the characters...the ending..lost world just suffered from a little disease called hollywooditis.

[ak]

in response, i feel that the film will actually be quite visually disappointing for me. but like people have pointed out, they have to strive for a real-world look, which is fine. yes, the pictures do look stunning, and the scene in the trailer where there are thousands of soldiers (not sure what they are)looks absolutely amazing. these films i think will definately be the greatest visual films ever. infact, i will go a far way out to say, they may be the greatest three films ever, but we'll all just have to wait and see about that! although, it is hard to imagine any of these films ever beating the immensity of the empire strikes back.

[Tuukka]

What kind of visual style you might have preferred for LOTR? Would it be a more visually stylished fantasy world like the works of Tim Burton? Maybe something like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or Ridley Scott's "Legend"?

Personally I would have hated if it would have looked anything like Dracula or Legend. But the creepy, atmospheric feeling of "Sleepy Hollow" would have suited it well... In fact according to the Trailer and some official pics the film is going to have some sequences in style of Sleepy Hollow, where as others are more realistic.

[ak]

hey Servo, you have a certain point about George Lucas being a bit out of experience with episode one, but the fact still remains, if he wanted to make a really good movie, he would have handed the direction to someone else. i have seen photographs from episode 2 (by the way, c3po is totally grey, a dull metal) and there is a scene of Anakin in a kinda nightclub in a starwars town, i cannot remember the name, somewhere in tatooine i think, but, i'm affraid, yet again, as in episode 1, everything, looks fake, and "just made". whereas lord of the rings does indeed look like everything has had a history. if george lucas really wanted to make episode 2 really dark, he should have chosen stephen dorff as anakin, i think that would have worked really well

[ak]

Tukka, i cannot explain the camera effect that some films use to create, in a sense, a "grown up" look. episode 1 definately didn't use it and it doesn't look as though episode2 will either. they look like they have been filmed with a porn-film camera, but lord of the rings loks like it may have that "grown up" camera effect, which is exactly what i was looking for. Tim Burton seems to use it in almost all his films, yes, especially sleepy hollow, but maybe not that far!

[Tuukka]

Or Lucas Black... He was born to play the young Darth Vader. Despite his young age he is an outstanding actor with exceptional screen presence. Lucas Black has that wicked, evil spark in him... But he can also be very tender and sympathetic. Pure charisma.

[ak]

who is Lucas Black tuuka? what films/programmes has he been in?

[ak]

i really have strong opinions on the way they should have filmed episode one. in the final fight in episode one, the jedi and darth maul looked like they were fighting in a toy store! the sets looked sooooo fake. even the costumes were pretty dire. they should have had haley joel osment or someone like that playing anakin, some kid that is more serious, he was the thing that ruined the film for me.!!!

by the way, has anyone got any ideas as to how anakin gets severely scarred in episode 3????????

[Tuukka]

Lucas Black has acted mainly supporting roles in different independent drama films. His most famous work is probably the starring role against Billy Bob Thornton in "Slingblade". He is also going to play a major role in the upcoming "All the pretty horses". He was born in 1982 and actually auditioned for Phantom Menace... Lucas didn't take him. It was surely because Black is THE TOTAL OPPOSITE of Jake Loyd. He is not cute and pretty.. More like really fucked up. He was 13 when he made Slingblade... And he had an aura of a middle-aged, world weary man.

Here is a picture:

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/hsi/B/l/ac/k,+Lucas+(II).hsi

He also played the main role in critically acclaimed horror/fantasy TV series called "American Gothic" in 95-96. It played also here in Finland. I guess that's his most famous work. It should be airing in scifi channel in USA right now.



[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Tuukka]

AK, when you talked about "adult" look you were basicly talking about production design and cinematography (lighting, compositing etc). Phantom Menace had great effects, but they looked fake. This was partly because of design, and partly because of cinematography. For example it wasn't a very good idea to shoot so many of the SFX scenes in daylight. It'a hard to make them realistic, since they are so clearly visible. The lightning in film was surprisingly mediocre. It looked more like a standard TV series, which just has expensive effects. The compositing, lighting and editing were not good at all. Cinematographer Tattersall has done mainly TV work. Editors were also TV veterans. There is surprisingly little A-talent in the crew of PM, and it shows.

Of course the films TRIED to achieve a candy-store look and succeeded in it. I guess kids are attracted to it, but personally I want to see something a bit darker and sophisticated.

[Servo]

First off, about the Episode 2 sets, I think the backgrounds and such have to do with the mood of the series. Episode 1 to me looked like something out of a 50's Sci-Fi space movie, even Amidala/Padme's guns. Second off, if I had the choice of casting an older Anakin, I'd choose me. 'Nuff said. Heh...just kidding. Seriously though, I would've stuck to Leonardo DiCaprio. He seems like he'd be pretty good after watching that first Fake Episode 2 trailer.

P.S.
The night club is on Coruscant.

[Tuukka]

Yeah, the film tried to reach a candy-like look... A kitchy look. It succeeded in it, but that kind of stuff doesn't impress me.

The main visul influence for the Star Wars series has probably always been the classic french "Valerian" comics. The spaceships, buldings, creatures and costumes are all very similar to drawings of J-C Mezieres. The whole feel of the film series is very similar to Valerian.

But like I said earlier, cheese will always be cheese. LOTR might be cheese as well, but it has potential to be something more than that.

[ak]

i very much doubt that the lord of the rings will be cheese. i have seen the trailer, and if that is anything to go by, it won't be cheese. now, as for episode two, i think it will remain in the same crappy style of episode 1 unfortunately. episodes 4, 5 and 6 each had a distinctive look that was unique to those episodes, and i think that this will remain the same with episode 1, 2 and 3. All i can say is, i hope that gerore lucas pulls his finger out, or he'll lose his audience for sure, and worse than that, people's faith in the new trilogy.

[ak]

by the wa tuuka, i agree with you on the lighting thing in episode one. they should hire people with extraordinary talent, but it looks like lord of the rings has that!!!

[herculeez]

HEY AK! what is your obsession with all this LOTR trilogy coming soon?
granted it's promising SOOOO much, but its got one HELLUVA hill to climb to be within arms reach of star wars and it's reputation.
but saying that if star wars keeps up it's TERRIBLE from then LOTR could run away with it! oooohhhh!!!
an arguement with myself there!

[ak]

hey wee little man - herculeez, it is hard to see any film beating starwars and its sequel - the empire strikes back, their cultural influence has been massive, all i am saying is that lord of the rings is the only film ever to challenge that. it is likely that the lord of the rings films will ever be the only ones too. lets just hope they are as good as we all hope they will be.

[Tuukka]

It's always interesting to see how books are translated to screen visually. I think that Jackson and his crew probably have the toughtest assigment anyone has ever had.

There are many characters in LOTR that are EXTREMELY difficult to translate to screen. Gollum and Balrog will both be CGI creations and many people have very precise ideas of how they should look like. I like the design of Gollum a lot, but so far nobody has seen Balrog. I think they will pull it off.

But what about Sauron? That's extremely difficult, since the books never give any precise description of him. It has been announced that Sauron will be visible in few scenes and according to rumours he will be a man in black armour. I'm not 100% sure if this is true, but I hope they thrive for something original.

The point about Sauron is that he is not a man anymore. He is half-god and the EVIL himself. Everyone who sees him is scared hald dead just by the sight of him. How are they going to portray that visually? In my opinion it's wise to show him as little as possible. Hide him in the shadows. If they are going to show him, it might be a good idea to portray something more inhuman. Something like in the paintings of H.R Giger (The original Alien designer).

I actually like the idea that they wouldn't show much besides the eye of Sauron. The eye design in the teaser trailer is cool and a more photo realistic version of the eye would be fine. There is no need to show much more... Besides, I've heard that we won't hear him speaking (A wise decision).

We'll see...




[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-28-2000).]

[Tuukka]

By the way, I really hope that they can ignore the cheese... I just saw a couple of pictures of Gandalf and his clothes are a bit cheesy. His costumes might work on the screen but on the stills he has so far been 50% cool and 50% cheese. The Vanity Fair pictures rule, but the new Empire pic makes me a bit suspicious...

It's the same thing as with Superhero comics. Yellow Spandex looks fine on paper, but on the big screen it's just ridicilous. I'm happy that they updated the X-Men suits and hopefully they won't have the blue-red suit in the Spiderman movie.

Clothes for Gandalf are loyal to the book and to all the old illustrations, but might not look totally convincing in the film. Well, at least the other costumes so far have been great.

[ak]

i'm not so sure i agree with you on the gandalf cheesy costume thing. i think it looks brilliant. as an audience we have to have the imagination to actually feel for this world of tolkiens, not just to look at it and enjoy it. the costume, i think, looks absolutely amazing, like nothing i've ever seen before, in terms of costume design. i think the costumes in starwars episode 1 were awful, all of them. i think the overall look of episode one was cheesy and amateur. the costumes just didnt look like they were used for a practical purpose in the film, where in the lord of the rings, i think they do.

i do think cinematography can play a huge part in the succes of a costume too. lighting is a prime example. i have seen one or two photos of gandalf in the film, with candlelight casting a dark shadow over one side of his face and costume, and this is one amazing look. i just jope they use amazing lighting throughout the film. the photos in empire this month were taken in natural light and look ok, but not as good as they were when gandalf was in paculiar light. episode one never used any special lighting, even the end scene where qui jonn ginn was getting burned was awful. this was a direct result of blue screen being over-used. george lucas should go back to shooting in real location with lighting to suit these locations. the empire strikes back used this, and i personally think that the empire strikes back was not only the best film ever made, but the best looking film ever made. i wonder if lord of the rings will ever become the greatest film ever.

[Tuukka]

Well, well... It's friday here in Finland and it's only seven days to the release of "13 Days"... The Kevin Costner flick that has the new, unseen theatrical trailes for LOTR films. I really hope that they put it to internet on the same day as well. 13 Days won't open in Finland before late spring.

[Brock Landers]

I was just perusing an Internet Film Locater and when I put in "Lord Rings" and clicked on Search, it sent me to a film called "Lord Of The Anal Rings"...apparently the guys on the cover of the box were trying to wrestle or something...I wonder why they were covered in baby oil and naked? I've never seen wrestling like that before...

[Tuukka]

What is an anal ring? Is it a ring that is attached to your anus? Isn't that a bit unpractical?

[Dark Prince]

I hope it'll be successful.

[ak]

Wow, its been a while since i have seen this particular topic at the top of this forum.

Recently John Rhys Davies, a welsh man like myself and a few others on this board, has said that "these films will not only be the biggest films of all time, they will be your most favourite films of all time.

Big words.