Why aren't you going to see "Lord of the Rings?"

[LordKaruku]

As a Tolkien fan, I have been eagerly awaiting the Lord of the Rings movies ever since I first heard they were under development, way back in 1997. I have followed every detail of filming and post-production on the net; I even run a website with info about the trilogy. So its therefore impossible for me to get a sense of the impression the general public is getting.

So to anyone who isn't excited about Lord of the Rings, I'd like your thoughts-- what have you thought of the trailers and commercials? If you think the film looks lame or boring, tell me why specifically? The financial success of the trilogy will depend on its crossover appeal to non-Tolkien fans, and I'm curious to get an idea of where that group is at.

[Ender]

Hey, don't ask me. It would take a bomb to keep me away from the theatre on December 19th. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[ilovemovies]

I have never read the books and even if the movie is the best movie of all time I still won't. I do want to see it still, though, because the commercials do look pretty wild and awesome.

[Nate6]

I'm going to see it probably, the books were good but not as good as people say they are. Something says that the movie will be a slight disappointment to some people.

[ak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nate6:
Something says that the movie will be a slight disappointment to some people.</font>

Well, from early reviews, the first film is definaely not a disappointment.
P.S - The books are as great as they say they are.

[Lazycouch]

The only people who aren't going to see it are those self-righteous pricks who think they're too "cool" to see a fantasy story. They think it's "gay" and for "geeks". Pfft, they can all kill themselves for all I care.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
Well, from early reviews, the first film is definaely not a disappointment.
P.S - The books are as great as they say they are.</font>

I heard a lot of great early reviews for Pearl Harbor too. I'm not saying that it isn't going to be a great movie, but I don't think it's going to be the masterpiece everyone says it will be. Then again, who knows?

P.S. The thing about the books being as good as they say they are is an opinion. They're good, excellent in fact but come on! I've read better.

Anyways I don't want to get into this crap anymore because I know most of the people on here seem to be obsessive LOTR fanboys, so I'm done arguing about it.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
Well, from early reviews, the first film is definaely not a disappointment.
P.S - The books are as great as they say they are.</font>

RE: We have to remember that all the reviews so far are from major fanboys. I wouldn't trust them that much. Many major SW fanboys declared Phantom Menace as a great film. The reviews so far are very encouraging, but we have to wait for more reviews from people who are not fans of the books.

I have to say it's kind of funny how many people say that the film looks "dumb" and yet they are eagerly anticipating AOTC and loved a film like Dude, Where's My Car. It looks "dumb" because it's a fantasy film. The same setup and story in scifi environment probably wouldn't seem so "dumb". So yes, I agree that many people, especially teens, consider that the film is not hip and cool enough to be interested about it, simply because it's a traditional fantasy film. Fantasy is considered as too "geeky" stuff to be cool. Adults on the other hand don't recognize the geekiness of it and the film is likely to perform exceptionally well in the 30+ market. Many people in their 50's and 60's who see one film a year are going to see LOTR this year.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-01-2001).]

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lazycouch:
The only people who aren't going to see it are those self-righteous pricks who think they're too "cool" to see a fantasy story. They think it's "gay" and for "geeks". Pfft, they can all kill themselves for all I care.</font>


I AM NONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU JUST SAID and I'm not going to see it in the theaters...Too much hype. I'm waiting for the DVD...

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Horror whore:

I AM NONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU JUST SAID and I'm not going to see it in the theaters...Too much hype. I'm waiting for the DVD...</font>

Hmmm.... But you did see Harry Potter, right? Didn't it have too much hype? Anyway, if you ARE interested in LOTR, I think it's one film that should be seen in the biggest theater possible. If I would receive a high quality DVD copy of LOTR right now, I wouldn't watch it. It has to be seen on the big screen for the first time. There is one thing that everyone has agreed so far, the film is visually one on the most stunning films ever made.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
There is one thing that everyone has agreed so far, the film is visually one on the most stunning films ever made.</font>


And how many times have you seen it Tuukka? I'm sick of people wasting my time with this. I'll see it if I think it looks good, and I don't need hyper fanboys screaming at me and criticizing my choices. There is just too much hype around this movie. And yes, I went to see Harry Potter, but that's because I liked the books. I'll see LOTR, because I liked the books (but not loved them) and not because people who haven't seen it are telling me that it's the most visually stunning film of all time.

Whoo, there's my rant!

[bskutle]

I'll be there December 19; the film looks EPIC. I can't wait!

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nate6:

And how many times have you seen it Tuukka? I'm sick of people wasting my time with this. I'll see it if I think it looks good, and I don't need hyper fanboys screaming at me and criticizing my choices. There is just too much hype around this movie. And yes, I went to see Harry Potter, but that's because I liked the books. I'll see LOTR, because I liked the books (but not loved them) and not because people who haven't seen it are telling me that it's the most visually stunning film of all time.

Whoo, there's my rant!</font>

RE: When I said "everyone", I naturally meant all the people who have reviewed the film so far. Personally I haven't seen the film and I can comment only to the look of the trailers, which look very handsome. And to point out, people have claimed it's ONE OF THE most visually stunning films they have seen, not THE most visually stunning.

The point is, that if a person is interested in seeing LOTR, I would at this point definitely advice them to see it on big screen instead of TV. Trailers look handsome, PJ is visually a very talented and creative director (just check Heavenly Creatures) and the reviews so far (to the film itself and the Cannes footage) have given enourmous praise to the visuals. So it feels reasonable to assume that the word so far is true. Why watch an epic like LOTR only on TV, if you are interested in it?

As for the hype, who cares? The quality of a film is not dependent on hype. If the film turns out to be good, I will see it. If it will turns out to be crap, I won't see it. It's simple as that. I don't understand people who want to see a film depending on how big hype it has. It's the quality of the film that matters to me. So far the reviwes are too few to draw any big conclusions, except that I'm at this point convinced the film is at least rather good with some great occasional moments. In other words, good enough to spend 9 bucks.

How do I know that it will be at least rather good with occasional great moments? I've read 6-7 reviews of the entire film so far. 15-20 reviews of the Cannes footage (25 minutes of the film) and I have followed the making of the film closely for two years now (all the people involved are exceptionally enthusiastic about the film), plus I have seen four trailers and 6-7 TV commercials. I guess that's enough to form an opinion.

I have already stated several times before that if we wait for a life-changing experience, we are likely to be disappointed. Let's wait instead for a well acted, well written, solid adventure film with some cool action and SFX. If the film is more than that, we are going to be positively surprised. In the age of hugely average adventure films such as Mummy Returns, Tomb Raider and JP3 I think FOTR has a good change of being a better adventure film than what we usually see.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-01-2001).]

[ak]

Nate6 - It doesn't take much to see that this film looks to be one of, if not the most visually impressive film(s) of all time.

Also, I think it is highly ignorant and rude of people when they revert to enthusiastic people as "fanboys" - How ridiculous. Obviously, there are some who take it far too far, and could be classified under this term, but those are the kind who buy all the toys, collect all the tea mugs, Burger King place mats, matching socks and the like.


P.S: Ian McKellen has also stated that the films need to be seen on the silver screen in order to truly appreciate the scale of everything. It's always the best way.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-01-2001).]

[FlickJunkie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lazycouch:
The only people who aren't going to see it are those self-righteous pricks who think they're too "cool" to see a fantasy story. They think it's "gay" and for "geeks". Pfft, they can all kill themselves for all I care.</font>

Really. I'm with Horror whore. I'm none of those things. I don't think I'm too cool for anything. I don't think it's gay or for geeks. It just doesn't interest me. Simple...as...that!

[James Logan]

Hey, it really comes out December 19th in the States? Same time as in France! Yes! For once, I won't have to spend weeks watching you talk about flicks I ain't able to see yet... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Anyway, I read the books, I loved 'em, and the movie looks stunning to me. The trailers and soundtrack are magnificient. There's nothing more you can do to get a guy to go see a movie IMO. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[max]

Haven't seen POTTER and have no immediate plans to see RINGS. I'm just not a special effects fan. I've also lost my inner child a long time ago.

[Tuukka]

Well, I think Lazycouch over-exaggarates A LOT by saying that "The only people who aren't going to see it are those self-righteous pricks who think they're too "cool" to see a fantasy story.". I'm convinced that there are people like that, but there are also lot's of people who just aren't interested. No film is going to appeal to everyone. I'm just objecting to people who claim that LOTR looks "dumb" and then go on saying how great Phantom Menace was. LOTR doesn't look anymore "dumb" than Star Wars, Harry Potter or Terminator movies. They are all works of fantasy in one way or another and require a bit of suspension of disbelief and maybe a connection with your "inner child" to enjoy them.

[Tuukka]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
Haven't seen POTTER and have no immediate plans to see RINGS. I'm just not a special effects fan. I've also lost my inner child a long time ago.</font>

Oh yes... Let's hope that LOTR will get enough praising reviews to get you in the theatre and you might find your inner child again... Don't give up on hope... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif But I do have to point out that it's the story that appeals to LOTR fans like me, not the SFX.


[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 12-01-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Ok, first off, I want to make a point - Lord of the Rings fanatics, and Star Wars fanatics are two entirely different types of fanatics. Have you ever been to a true Tolkein website?? No,...didnt think so. If you had, than you would know that Lord of the Ring fanatics would be THE FIRST ONES TO BASH THIS MOVIE. They would be the ones bitching about every change is story, character, dialouge, everything. And guess what?? They havent. They have given the film nothing but praise, except for a few minor details, that only the most critical person will notice. The difference is that, Star Wars fans would be the first one to look past the fact that their precious film is nothing but crap. And you all know it was. I didnt get sucked into The Phantom Menace hype one little bit, and the movie let even me down. But youll find Star Wars fans all over saying "this film is the greatest" all over, just because it is part of their precious Star Wars. I loved the original trilogy (well, not RotJ) but Phantom Menace sucked. And yet youll have fans of SW that say "it only sucked because it needed to set things up for the next 2 GREAT ONES!!!!!!!!!!!!". ......thats bullshit. It only sucked because it sucked. And Nate6,......sorry to tell you, but I was crazy excited about Pearl Harbor, and I read every review I could find,......and not one of them was positive. Well, maybe a couple, but you get my point. And there is a difference between SW and any other major blockbuster, and Lord of the Rings. People know the story for Lord of the Rings. Poeple know what is going to happen, so they know that there is a huge chance that the film will be great. Even people that havent read the book are incredibly excited. ........ok, im done. damn

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
but there are also lot's of people who just aren't interested. No film is going to appeal to everyone. I'm just objecting to people who claim that LOTR looks "dumb" and then go on saying how great Phantom Menace was. LOTR doesn't look anymore "dumb" than Star Wars, Harry Potter or Terminator movies. They are all works of fantasy in one way or another and require a bit of suspension of disbelief and maybe a connection with your "inner child" to enjoy them. </font>

Exactly. I said I'd go see it, but people are ganging up on me here just because I said that, uh oh, it may not be the best movie ever made!

[LordKaruku]

Wow, that sure turned nasty quick.

So far, there only seem to be two comments that address the original question -- Nate6 seems annoyed at the amount of hype and fan rudeness, and max says he isn't a special effects fan. Anyone else?

[ak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
Haven't seen POTTER and have no immediate plans to see RINGS. I'm just not a special effects fan. I've also lost my inner child a long time ago.</font>

Well, even though the film will include rather a lot of CGI, it is most definately not a film completely reliant on it. It is very emotional, and the story is so involving - It should be far more involving than many a big film, or any "art" films made recently.
I'd be lying if the special effects weren't the obvious main attraction for many, but please, don't just think effects, think emotional effect.

P.S - I don't really think the story requires you to look into your inner-child, it gets very, very dark and scary in places. Although, there are some very fun bits and outlandish fantasy aspects that may require the inner child, it shouldn't have as many as most films of its ilk.



[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-01-2001).]

[max]

Well, ak, I'm more interested in seeing RINGS than I am POTTER. Still, it's not very high on my list of movies to see this Christmas. And you better be right about how involving it is cuz it's 3 hours of my life. I don't want to end up with nothing more than a sore ass.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Think about what you just said. Either you are going to be sitting in a theater watching a great film with surround and air conditioning, or you are going to be sitting at home on your ass for that three hours watching T.V. sitcoms. Either way, your msitting. Besides, people act like 3 hours in a theater is a long time, its not really. People sit on their ass at home for hours upon hours upon hours.

[Cyclonus]

Hey I'm gonna see it!

[Raw Chili]

Never read the books, and also not interested to read the book or see the movie.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Thats nice, but you probably should give a reason why. (Suddenly it occurs to Dumb-Fokker-** that everyone who says they arent going to see this film probably is, and is just talking shit).

[Trada]

people are worried if this film will appeal to non-LOTR fans below is a review from a person who knows nothing about LOTR its from Newsweek.

Beware minor spoiler



A ‘Ring’ to Rule the Screen

Peter Jackson’s fierce, imaginative movie takes high-flying risks and inspires with its power and scale

By David Ansen
NEWSWEEK

Dec. 10 issue — First, let me tell you where I’m coming from. Before I saw “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” I didn’t know the difference between an orc and an elf, or what Middle-earth was in the middle of. This review is coming to you from a Tolkien-free zone. I went in to Peter Jackson’s movie—the first of a trilogy—with no preconceptions. I came out, three hours later, sorry I’d have to wait a year to see what happens next in Frodo Baggins’s battle against the Dark Lord, Sauron, and thinking a trip to the bookstore to pick up “The Two Towers” might be in order.

THE MOVIE WORKS. It has real passion, real emotion, real terror, and a tactile sense of evil that is missing in that other current movie dealing with wizards, wonders and wickedness. Jackson’s fierce, headlong movie takes high-flying risks: it wears its earnestness, and its heart, on its muddy, blood-streaked sleeve. The actors look deep into each other’s eyes and swear oaths in quasi-Shakespearean language that could, were it not for the utter conviction with which it is played, topple over into the ludicrous.
After a dark and stormy prologue that explains the history of the ring, we meet our hero, Frodo (Elijah Wood), and his mentor, the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen), in bucolic Hobbiton. This first half hour is shaky: you might feel you’ve been dragged to a Renaissance Faire where diminutive hobbits cavort with less than contagious jollity. One-hundred-eleven-year-old Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), the current possessor of Sauron’s ring, passes it on to Frodo and unknowingly puts the boy’s life in danger.
Tolkien’s mythic tale is both very simple and very intricate: in order to save the world from evil, Frodo must return the ring to the fires of Mount Doom where it was forged—for only there can it be destroyed. To accomplish this, he must form a coalition among the races of Middle-earth—elves, dwarfs, hobbits, wizards and humans—to battle the armies of the Dark Lord. (Is there an echo here of our current world? If you hear it, it lends this war movie an extra urgency.) With his multispecies band of nine brothers—the Fellowship—Frodo sets out to the land of Mordor.

Jackson’s imagination quickens at the scent of evil, as anyone who has seen his lurid horror-comedy “Dead Alive” or “Heavenly Creatures” knows. “Fellowship” takes hold as soon as the spectral Black Riders appear, hot in pursuit of Frodo and his three hobbit pals. Soon, there are festering-faced orcs, brutal urik hai warriors and a deadly cave troll in the mines of Moria. Jackson’s camera flies like a hawk, swooping and plunging into breathtaking scenes of blood and destruction.
For the film’s design, Jackson turned to Tolkien book illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe. The depiction of the landscapes, architecture and creatures of evil is stunning. But when it comes to the depiction of the good, the movie lapses into art nouveau kitsch. Cate Blanchett’s appearance as a golden-locked elven queen is like pre-Raphaelite calendar art. The elven city of Rivendell runs to Ye Olde Antique Shoppe. Jackson isn’t the first artist to be more inspired by darkness than light.

With his preternaturally wide eyes, his strong neck and his dirt-caked fingernails, Woods makes an ideal hobbit hero, at once ethereal, determined and funky. Jackson keeps his movie rooted in the earth—you can almost smell the damp forests. Two of the most passionate performances come from Viggo Mortensen as the courageous Aragorn and Sean Bean as the conflicted warrior Boromir. McKellen is a playfully magisterial Gandalf, and he is pitted against no less a foe than Christopher Lee as wizard turned bad Saruman.
This is a violent movie—too violent for little ones—and there are moments more “Matrix” than medieval. Yet it transcends cheap thrills; we root for the survival of our heroes with a depth of feeling that may come as a surprise. The movie keeps drawing you in deeper. Unlike so many overcooked action movies these days, “Fellowship” doesn’t entertain you into a stupor. It leaves you with your wits intact, hungry for more.

[ak]

From the sparse reviews I have read thus far, it has come to my attention that people think it's a great film, but not one of the greatest.
Now, my point is this: Take the best trilogies ever made: Indiana Jones, Star Wars and The Godfather trilogies.
What do they all have in common? - The answer is that their greatness is determined by the films as a whole.
Star Wars has its great episode - The Empire Strikes Back - A New Hope is probably second to it, and Return of the Jedi is mediochre, with some great bits - Its whole is greater than its parts.
The Godfather Part I is a great film, The Godfather Part II is almost as good, and The Godfather Part III is just good.
And, the same applies with the Indiana Jones trilogy.

So my point, overall, is that once the whole LOTR trilogy is complete, it will more than likely be viewed as one of the greatest "films" (a term used to describe the whole) of all time.

I think the trilogy will sooner make people's favourite film lists than their greatest lists.
Although, I haven't seen the film yet, and neither have any of you, so i'll get back to this matter when it's done.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 12-02-2001).]

[Irene Manor]

I think FOTR is going to be great, but am not going ape-shit over seeing it. I grew up with the stories and, well, I know what happens.

For me, it's all about the things I don't know.

Like:


Why are those little kids gambling on the street?
http://bventertainment.go.com/movies/royal/pics/image08.jpg


Is he happy to see her, or is she just watching TV?

http://bventertainment.go.com/movies/royal/pics/image04.jpg


Will this girl ever get happy?
http://bventertainment.go.com/movies/royal/pics/image02.jpg



[This message has been edited by Irene Manor (edited 12-02-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Ok, I take back my joke about people here who are saying that they arent going to see the film, but probably are and are just talking shit. I guess some people took it a little more seriously than I thought they would.

[ak]

Wow! Gwyneth Paltrow looks very anal in that picture!!!

[Irene Manor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ak:
Wow! Gwyneth Paltrow looks very anal in that picture!!!</font>

She looks like a fruit loop.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me give you some advice here. This advice is to everyone that thinks LOTR will be the BEST film ever made (it's going to be good, but not the best ever)... You guy's are setting your hopes way to high and I will tell you one thing, the higher you build your hopes up the father they could fall... another words what i'm tryin to say is that if you set your hopes to this film so high, those hopes could hit rock bottom and it could turn out to be just an average flick, and the higher your hopes are the father they will fall... think about that a minute....

NOTE: Please remember that what I just typed is my opinion so DO NOT jump on my back about it okay?? I am just trying to help you relise that sometimes movies are NOT everything you expected they would be (example: Tomb Raider and The Mummy Returns)
Just keep that advice in the back of your mind.. Remember, DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT jump on my back and start calling what I say is dumb and Stupid and I dont know shit about shit, Cause the only thing your going to accomplish by doing that is Piss Me Off, so why bother???????????? Thank You For Your Time.......

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tuukka:
Hmmm.... But you did see Harry Potter, right? Didn't it have too much hype? Anyway, if you ARE interested in LOTR, I think it's one film that should be seen in the biggest theater possible. If I would receive a high quality DVD copy of LOTR right now, I wouldn't watch it. It has to be seen on the big screen for the first time. There is one thing that everyone has agreed so far, the film is visually one on the most stunning films ever made.</font>

But I was looking forward to HARRY POTTER...And as it's my favorite book series I could care less how much hype it had. If I would recieve a DVD of LOTR right now I'd be giving you a review tomorrow...(Actrually I had a dream that I got the DVD before it came out....weird)

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Thats nice, but you probably should give a reason why. (Suddenly it occurs to Dumb-Fokker-** that everyone who says they arent going to see this film probably is, and is just talking shit).</font>

Not really...I AM NOT GOING TO SEE IT and there is no shit talking from my mouth...

[bmain77]

dicaprio_travolta_man posted the most intelligent message here yet. People are getting their hopes up way too high. I think the only reason I actually liked the Phantom Menace is that I went in with no expectations other than to be entertained. It was the "fanboys" who expected some kind of religious experience that detested the movie the most. I see exactly the same sort of thing going on with LOTR. Like the reviewer who has had no experience with Tolken I think there is a better chance of me liking the film than those who have already read the books, because I go in with no preconcieved notions of what to expect. I don't expect a religious experience. I'm sorry but it appears that many of the LOTR fans are.

[bskutle]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by bmain77:
People are getting their hopes up way too high. I think the only reason I actually liked the Phantom Menace is that I went in with no expectations other than to be entertained. It was the "fanboys" who expected some kind of religious experience that detested the movie the most.</font>

A-freaking-men bmain! I'll admit I got my hopes way up on "TPM," but was still able to look at the film and still see there was much to like from it. "Fellowship" looks to be shaping up in a similar way. Fans build up the anticipation to a level no film could possibly match, only to be inevitably let down when they see it. This is something I'm trying to avoid with this film.

[Scorchlord]

The Phantom Menace and Lord of the Rings are completely different. People who don't see that are deluded.

I don't know how anyone could be entertained on the whole by TPM. That movie sucked big time. Never have I seen a worse case of bad writing, dialogue, acting, and special effects. It was a wholly arificial and uncaring film.

LOTR, on the other hand, has characters you care about, a great story, awesome dialogue, and judging by the reviews thus far, superb acting. There is a big, big difference.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

The thing is, TPM and FotR are two entirely different forms of hype. No one knew what to expect from TPM, but with LotR`s, those who are setting their hopes so high, are doing so because they know the story from front to back, they know the characters, they know the events, and they know that if PJ did it even half as good as the book, than they are going to have an incredible film. Totally different kind of hype in that Lord of the Rings hype is founded, and has a source, while TPM was hyped just because it was Star Wars - they didnt know anything about it. See the difference??

[bmain77]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:


I don't know how anyone could be entertained on the whole by TPM. That movie sucked big time. Never have I seen a worse case of bad writing, dialogue, acting, and special effects. It was a wholly arificial and uncaring film.

LOTR, on the other hand, has characters you care about, a great story, awesome dialogue, and judging by the reviews thus far, superb acting. There is a big, big difference.</font>

Oh yeah thats right. Star Wars fans had nothing to base their expectations on when Episode one came out. Silly me thought they might base in on the most beloved series of films in history. C3PO, R2D2, Obi Won, Yoda, and Anakin Skywalker were carry overs from a rather trivial series of films that had no bearing on The Phantom Menance. I also heard these same characters were subject to some rather unpopular books and such in the intervening years between the movies.

And for you less intelligent out there, please note the hint of sarcasm.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the differences in their hype. This issue has nothing to do with the quality of film. Both movies in question have a built in audience on whom the filmmakers can expect to bank quite a huge amount of money. In this way there is no difference in the hype. One can't say that LOTR's hype is better only because the material being worked with is better. Thats up for debate. It's not as if George Lucas is working from the weakest story ever written. Just because Star Wars isn't based on a classic novel doesn't take away from the quality of the story.

[This message has been edited by bmain77 (edited 12-03-2001).]

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

bmain, you obviously need to reread my post, because you totally missed what I was saying. All Ii said was that, we knoe everything about the films that are about to be made (or most of it, seeing as how it is 85% directly from the book) whereas, with TPM all you had was a story sypnosis and some trailers. Im sorry, but LotR`s hype is just more justified in the fact that we knew more about it.

[Scorchlord]

I'm a huge fan of the original Star Wars trilogy. Episode I was terrible, and nothing - NOTHING - like the other three. It was a feature length commercial.

Lord of the Rings hype is much more justified than with Star Wars Eppy I: when Ep 1 was on its way, no one knew the story. No one knew what the dialogue would be like. It was all in the dark. When it came out, it was a huge disappointment because it didn't have any characters that make the Trilogy so beloved. However, with Lord of the Rings, you get a story that those who have read the books know; and if that story is stuck to, then it is extremely difficult to screw up.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Yeah, what he said.

[LennysLeggs]

Just a thought on getting your hopes too high:

I am a HUGE LOTR fan. I have read the trilogy EVERY year since I first read it at age 12. I am now 23. When I first heard a live-action LOTR movie was being made, I wasn't all that excited. I kept thinking about Bashiki's cartoon that sucked so bad. Then I saw the first trailer two years ago. My interests were piqued. So I started watching the fan-movie sites like theonering.net and the official site. As each new photo came out, and each new trailer was released, my excitement grew and grew and grew until it is now at the fever pitch of explosion. My wife says if this movie doesn't get here soon, she is gonna leave me!!! (I hope she's just kidding!!!) But anyway, my point is, Peter Jackson and New Line have NAILED this movie. If I went to the movie and only got to see the trailers we have seen so far I would be satisfied. I think there is a big difference in getting your hopes up for a movie just because it is based on a book that you like, that you haven't seen much material on prior to release. I think New Line's hype has been perfect. They are building and building our anticipation. There are perfectionists out there who are picking on variances from the book and dialog, but let's face it if they stayed 100% true to the books, each movie would be 5 or 6 hours long, which I would GLADLY go see, but the general public would not. Is LOTR going to be the Saga of our generation? Who knows. Will it break box office records? Who cares. Will it be an excellent movie that pays homage to one of the most influential authors of the 20th century, and appeal to all ages and backgrounds? It sure looks that way. I will be ready and waiting for the 1st showing of the day on Dec. 19th.

[gl2899]

Ill have to agree with torchlord here. The hype on LOTR isnt in the least bit comparable to what came before TPM(ess). There was no way for us star wars fans to know how lame the dialog would be ("YIPPEEEEEEEE" "Now this is pod racing" and "Why, hes the son of a virgin, he must be Jedi Master Jesus", okay that last line wasnt really in the movie, but it wouldnt have shocked anyone if it had been at the point that little orphan Ani's origin was revealed) I have read Rings at least 10 times since Jr High. I know what to expect as far as dialog and story go. And that is why I will go to the movie. And no, I am not a hardcore Tolkien fan (I dont even own the books), Yes there are a TON of books that are better than the rings trilogy (everybody who likes fantasy go buy or borrow STARDUST from Neil Gaiman right now!!) but most fantasy is just branching off of what Tolkien created. I will see the movie and spend some time with some old friends.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:


LOTR, on the other hand, has characters you care about.</font>

No It Dosent!! I dont give a shit about the charecters in LOTR, I think there just a bunch of faggot's trying to be hero's.... And yes I have read the books, and I still feel that way about the charecters.... I will see this movie, not because of the charecters, but because of the story.....

[Scorchlord]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:
I think there just a bunch of faggot's trying to be hero's.... </font>

This tells us exactly what we need to know about you - you have ZERO credibility. The Backstreet Boys better than the Beatles? Modern music sickens me, as do those who profess to know anything about music and can then say that "The Backstreet Boys (or 'N Sync - they're interchangeable prefabricated corporate "bands") are the best ever!" It's idiotic. It's illogical. And tells everyone else just what we need to know.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

So now i'm an idiot because I'm not as hyped about LOTR as you are, and also because I like the Backstreetboys, is there something wrong with that, and did you hear the fucking words "BSB are the best ever" come out of my mouth???????????????? I didnt think so, Get your facts straight, then maybe I will listen to what U say, but until then I dont give a fuck.....

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

travolta, are you a guy?? Just wondering, dont take offense.

[Horror whore]

I'd take offense....Its says MAN in his username...Just because you don't like LOTR doesn't mean your a girl. And I too think the characters were dull....(Except for Frodo, Gandalf, and Sam)

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, its nice that you would take offense anyways, but I said "no offense". I was just asking because he is always talking about Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon, and Backstreet and N*SYNC, and "girl" movies. I seriously dont mean offense; it was just a question.

[Mike Damone]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Well, its nice that you would take offense anyways, but I said "no offense". I was just asking because he is always talking about Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon, and Backstreet and N*SYNC, and "girl" movies. I seriously dont mean offense; it was just a question.</font>

Not to mention, he did say he was attracted to Haley Joel Osment. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Scorchlord]

With the word "man" at the end, it's hard to tell.

DTM, where did I call you an idiot? All I wrote was that you have no credibility because you considered the characters to be a bunch of faggots trying to be heroes. That just reeks of spouting off with zero thought behind it. And it is also extremely offensive to people who are homosexual.

And perhaps I took your description of the Backstreet Boys songs as more "haunting" out of context. But I am a classical musician and have studied music in all its forms for a number of years, and I can say definitively that the Beatles have so much more talent and ability than the BSB, that it shouldn't even have to be said.

Let's just end this inane conversation and agree to disagree, like you have already said. This is a movie forum, not a let's-yell-at-each-other-with-typing-because-of-different-tastes forum.

[Scorchlord]

http://www3.tolkienonline.com/docs/5517.html

Again, another "Oh hell yeah!"