Will LOTR be the Saga of our generation? (Assuming you weren't born during Star Wars)

[Alf-Life]

Well, with no World Wars, no World Peace... nothing's really happened in our generation (MTV generation, generation-X, etc etc)... not even film-wise, really.

I wasn't alive when Star Wars first came out, so I'm wondering... will Lord of the Rings be the Saga of our Generation™? Will it be out big thing?

I certainly hope so... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[fredd521]

maybe. it looks good

[wilo]

I really think that it will be possible!!

[Horror whore]

No.

[Nate6]

I wasn't alive during any of the three original Star Wars films general releases but I don't think that LOTR will be the saga of our generation. If anything, and this may sound incredibly stupid to some, I think Harry Potter will be the saga of our generation. Think about it.

[Cyclonus]

I was born just a few months before "Empire" came out so of course I didn't see it then. I didn't see "Jedi" in theaters, but my friend gave me a poster, and I had some of the action figures, so I was familiar with the characters long before I even saw the films. (not till 1990 I think)

As for the subject at hand, it's anyone's guess.

[This message has been edited by Cyclonus (edited 11-21-2001).]

[FlickJunkie]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Horror whore:
No.</font>

Well said. You go whore!!

[sleekproductions]

Obviously

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

It will be if thats what you want to think. Although I feel these films will be much better than anything Star Wars could ever achieve; ( not that I dont like SW - I really do) I do not think that they will become the films of our generation. Simply because films arent what they used to be anymore, a new blockbuster comes out every other week, and back when Star Wars was released it was one-of-a-kind: an epic movie, laden with special effects, cheesy acting, and a good fun story.

[Ender]

Way too early to say. I mean, the first flick hasn't even been released yet, so we can't realistically start to speculate on the effect it will have.

[JDog83]

I really don't know too many people who are really into LOTR. I will see it, and probably see it more then once if it's good, but the TV spots really don't appeal to me, and thus, probably don't appeal to others. Looks more like something NBC would air during sweeps then something most people would pay to watch.

I honestly feel New Line has a bomb on their hands.

[ban all music]

Yes...just like the other person said in the Harry Potter thread about it bombing...because he didn't know anyone that was too into it. And as you can tell from the box office numbers, that person was exactly right, heh.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by JDog83:
Looks more like something NBC would air during sweeps then something most people would pay to watch.
</font>

Yes! I'm not the only one that thinks that!

Remember NBC's 1999 10-hour snooze-a-rama "The 10th Kingdom" with the abominable John Larroquette? That's what it looks like to me.

[Scorchlord]

Then you obviously have never read the books and know nothing about the story.

Don't comment on anything if your ignorant of it. Makes you look dumb.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

That it does. Nate6 and JDog, I suggest both of you think about what you are typing, because you obviously have never even looked at any of Tolkeins work. His work is crtically acclaimed, and Lord of the Rings has been voted the "Book of the Century" several times, in several different polls. Not only that, but Tolkein himself was voted "Author of the Century". Now, if you had any knowledge of this work, and that was your opinion than maybe you wouldnt look so dumb posting that, but you obviously dont, and therefore should think twice before comparing a literary masterpiece to "something NBC would air during sweeps".

[rgse]

Ummm... no. A good book does not guarantee a good movie. Plain and simple.

[Nate6]

Hey listen here guys, I've read all three LOTR books plus The Hobbit. I am not ignorant of them, they're certainly overrated but not terrible. But like rgse said, a good book does not always guarantee a good movie. What it LOOKS like totally differs from what it IS like. I talked about what it looks like, if you took your heads out of your asses you'd have figured that out! Anyway, I'm not in an arguing mood, so let me post my damn opinion!

[MoNsTeR]

honestly, i don't think it'd be of "our" generation. i mean, while the whole LOTR saga is unfolding, the whole Star Wars prequel is as well. but i honestly don't think it'd cause much a stir as Star Wars did in the 70's. i mean, everything back then was new. whatever they had back then didn't compare to Star Wars. and now, with LOTR coming out, most of all of us already know exactly what's going to happen in the story, whereas to Star Wars back then, it was unpredictable. LOTR would cause an impact (maybe the price sales for Burger King), but not for "our" generations.

i think the whole Harry Potter thing would be more of the "new" generation. hehehh... not "our". i seen people dressed up as Harry and all the other kids in the movie as people did in line for Star Wars. i don't think people would do the same for Aragorn or Frodo.

seriously though, i think LOTR deserves more than a comparison to an airing on NBC. i mean, that's just plain insulting. this story's an epic, and deserves more respect, and even though a good book doesn't guarantee a good movie, you just have to wait and see, and then bash away, but you can't ruin it for all of us.

oh yea.. i seen the trailers, and well... the movie is sort of different from the book. i mean, when did Arwen learn how to fight? even though Glofindel's character's been replaced by Arwen, you can't really say that the end result would be a horrible movie. even if the movie ruined it for all who read the book, it would turn out to be a good movie.

cheers!
-&gt;jeff&lt;-

ps. you know what's really sad? watching a commercial and believing it's the Lord Of The Rings trailer, but it's nothing but a dvd version of Willow. heh... just keep your fingers crossed.

[JDog83]

Monster--the comment about NBC said that it LOOKED like something NBC would air. Check out The 10th Kingdon or Leprechauns. It has a similar film style/look to it.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

No, not really. I dont think they look alike at all. You think that just because there are wizards, and dwarves, and elves, that it is some stupid fantasy film. And dont try and say you werent implying that - its right there. Obviously if you have read the books, than you know that this film is nothing like anything you mentioned. And how can you say the book is overrated?? If it werent for this book than you wouldnt have Star Wars, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Magic, or Final Fantasy. Tolkein is the master of modern fantasy, and that is why he is revered, not overrated.

[LordKaruku]

Even though the books are masterpieces, that has nothing to do with the movies. I think it's very unfortunate that the TV spots are coming off to some people like just another fantasy miniseries, but this can't be blamed on people not reading the books. The films need to stand on their own to be successful. Though from everything I've seen and heard, I believe Lord of the Rings will redefine fantasy film, it still may prove to be just as inaccessible and unpopular to the public-at-large as other fantasy films have been.

[James Logan]

Nope. LOTR won't be the saga of our generation, for the simple reason that it's not NEW. I mean, the books are already world-acclaimed, so I don't think the movies are gonna become somethin' characteristic of a generation.

And, besides, the movies could very well suck...nobody knew in 1977 that STAR WARS would be the movie of a generation, and it was. No way to guess greatness before hand.

[James Logan]

And whaddya mean nothin' happened during our generation? We got the HARRY POTTER books, the movies like FIGHT CLUB that were never made before, and we're the first generation of the computer/technological era.

I say that ain't bad... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rgse:
Ummm... no. A good book does not guarantee a good movie. Plain and simple.</font>


Absolutley...I could care less about what Tolkien put on paper I'm talking about the film that I do not expect to be the "saga of my generation"...HARRY POTTER has a better chance at that...

[ak]

Harry Potter does not have a chance at being the saga of our generation, perhaps a younger generation, but it just hasn't made a big enough impact on anything. It's not a great film, just good, and I can't really see it changing anyones life (unlike Star Wars).

On all serious notes though - You cannot rate a film by the book, they are entirely different mediums (Even though there is a firm, quality base for the film, it still doesn't affirm much). I think LOTR has a good chance at being a great saga, but we're living in a world where cultural phenomenon happens more frequently than, say 20 years ago, so I doubt it will have as big an impact as Star Wars did in 1977.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 11-24-2001).]

[Horror whore]

We all have our own opinions and as the HARRY POTTER books are my favorite books that probably will be "the saga of my generation". But I won't entirely know for 7 years. I actually think that HARRY POTTER books are far more interesting than LOTR. But thats my opinion and don't say I sound dumb talking about the books that way.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Horror whore:
We all have our own opinions and as the HARRY POTTER books are my favorite books that probably will be "the saga of my generation". But I won't entirely know for 7 years. I actually think that HARRY POTTER books are far more interesting than LOTR. But thats my opinion and don't say I sound dumb talking about the books that way.</font>


I am in total agreement with you. People (Dumb-Fokker, ahem) get mad at me when I say something the least bit negative about LOTR, but I've read them and I've read Harry Potter and I also find Potter more interesting. Certainly more fun, and I know a lot of people who agree with me.

Because LOTR is based on books, it has a significantly less chance of being a cultural phenomenon than Star Wars. Harry Potter's chances aren't as big either, but people of ALL ages love Harry Potter, it's difficult to find a kid and an adult who both like LOTR, but it's not difficult to find a kid and an adult who both like Harry Potter.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

This is a little (ok, ALOT) off-topic, but do any of you know when J.K. is going to publish book #5. I just re-read #4, and I dont think I wanna wait too much longer for #5.

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
This is a little (ok, ALOT) off-topic, but do any of you know when J.K. is going to publish book #5. I just re-read #4, and I dont think I wanna wait too much longer for #5.</font>


I've been waiting forever too!!! J.K. Rowling said it will come out around late summer 2002!( http://www.joblo.com/ubb/mad.gif Thats too damn long!)

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Late SUMMER!!!!! Well this book better be hella long, because if she is going to oversee every single one of her books made into films, than we will be waiting a looooooooooong time between each book. .........sorry about going off-topic. Um,......yeah, it will be.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
Late SUMMER!!!!! Well this book better be hella long, because if she is going to oversee every single one of her books made into films, than we will be waiting a looooooooooong time between each book. .........sorry about going off-topic. Um,......yeah, it will be.</font>

LOL at the rate they're going, since she took two years between Books 4 and 5, this one will likely be about 1298 pages! And by Book 7, we'll be looking at a book as big as the previous 6 combined! Oh well, as long as they're good I'll accept any length.

[Horror whore]

Ms. Rowling has said in many, many interviews that part five will not be as long as part four. She also said that the reason book five is taking "forever" is due the completicity of the book (that it unravels the last two books and everything that happens in them..?)

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Horror, would you mind sending me any articles you might know of that deal with the 5th book. I dont exactly know where to go. And, as for book 5 unraveling everything that happened in the previous books; are you sure?? That seems highly unlikely. I hope that the 5th book is ay least longer than the first 3 if it isnt going to be longer than book 4.

[Horror whore]

I actually have no clue where the hell the interviews are...One was an AOL special, and the other I found searching the web...

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

.......damn.

[fredd521]

No offense but Harry Potter might be. Cause sorcerors stone is prob. the worst out of all the ones that will come in the future and Phantom Menace was the worst and they're both the first or something ha i dnt make that much sense

[Ender]

I'm sorry, but Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings aren't even in the same dimension. Fantasy stories they both may be, but the subject matter and atmosphere of the movies and the books is far too different to fairly compare the two.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

No offense fred, but either you are a youngen, or you are not very literate, but I am gonna ask you to try and write coherently because I cant understand what you are saying, and trying to read that gave me a slight headache. Thanks.

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fredd521:
No offense but Harry Potter might be. Cause sorcerors stone is prob. the worst out of all the ones that will come in the future [nonsensical raving snipped]</font>

Really, you thought Sorcerer's Stone was the worst? I've only read the first two, but I thought the second was a lot weaker than the first. Kind of the "Airplane 2" of Harry Potter, if you get my drift.

[James Logan]

A bit off topic, but as the whole topic seems to be off topic... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

JK Rowling recently said in an interview that the books to come would be even longer. She even said Book 7 would look "like the Encyclopedia Britannica"! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by James Logan:
A bit off topic, but as the whole topic seems to be off topic... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

JK Rowling recently said in an interview that the books to come would be even longer. She even said Book 7 would look "like the Encyclopedia Britannica"! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif</font>


Where did you hear that? She said book 5 would be shorter than book 4...But I guess I haven't heard anything about book 6 or 7...

[fredd521]

LordKaraku yeah youre right the 2nd one is worse. Im wrong and dumbfokker ill work on that sry.

[Horror whore]

The second book is my favorite of the whole series...! I guess I'm just dumb! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

I think they are all good, but the third is my favorite. Dementors kick ass.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dumb-Fokker-**:
I think they are all good, but the third is my favorite. Dementors kick ass.</font>

Definitely. The fourth is my second favorite, but it goes on for to long. The second comes next, and the worst is the first one.

[MoNsTeR]

wow, there's a lot of Potter fans on here. that's sort of funny! cuz.. well... comparing HP to LOTR, i liked HP better!

i can honestly say that i finished HP year-2 in two sittings, while for Fellowship of the Ring, that took me a month! and i totally skipped a whole chapter! and, well... the book to me wasn't really any good! i didn't enjoy it. i SOO didn't relate with the book!! and well.. i HATE how they talk!!! i can't stand it! so... i skipped a few sections :-). how retarded right? you know what's even more retarded? i only read the trilogy because i saw the trailor for the first time when Charlie's Angels came out last year. hehehh... sigh.

honestly, for HP though, i read all four-years about three summers ago. i only read it cuz my mom (go figure) said it was good cuz she read a couple to my lil bro that started elem. school and that it fit my situation. when i read it, i actually laughed out loud on some parts! how retaaded!

anywho, i think the HP books are a SAGA of their own. the movie? well... no, it doesn't compare to the impact of Star Wars. but seriously though, i think the saga for now, well, if it is a saga, would be the Matrix. it caught us off guard, and i think movie's like that have a higher chance because movies like HP and LOTR, we already know what's going to happen, so our expecations for the movie would be really high, and when the movie turns out bad... well, there you go!

the Matrix is my guess... i mean, who knows? what if it turns out that Morpheous was Neo's long lost uncle and that Trinity was actually his sister? or that, there was no "real" matrix? you know? you can't ask those kinds of questions while watching LOTR, cuz you already know what's going to happen. and that just totally ruins the surprise, hence, the spark of anything new.

cheers!

[Alf-Life]

Heh, Agent Smith returns and tells Neo "Mr.Anderson, I am your father" OR something. Ahem.

Anyway, well... maybe I need to read the Harry Potter books, but I saw the HP movie a week ago and it was complete and utter shite, no holds barred.
LOTR is a great book and the only reason I brought LOTR- Saga of our Gen into debate was that, although, yes, film and book are two different media, you still need a good storyline, and since LOTR has that base, all you need is someone talented enough to bring that to the big screen.

If you extend ths analogy, you can see where a lot of games go wrong; the story. Take out a computer game's plot and make a movie (Mario Bros., Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat) and you get less than great results. However, on the flip side you cannot take a great story and make it into a game. Both aspects have to be 'welded' together.
In the same way, hopefully LOTR will be a great movie as well as a great book(s).

[LennysLeggs]

A few thoughts on Your Saga discussion:

1st 24hrs the 1st trailer was available - 1.67 million downloads - record.

1st 3 months official website was up - 500 million hits (before they stopped counting)

LOTR Trilogy has been voted #1 book of the 20th century multiple times (most recently beating out Pride and Predjudice, and the Bible in a London poll)

Book sales have tripled in the last 2 years since the movies were announced.

An award winning cast (very well chosen in my opinion)

A gripping, page turning story (not a kiddie bedtime tale)

Millions and millions of fans. Virtually anyone who has taken a literary fiction class in college has read at least one of the books.

I believe LOTR will shatter any and ALL records movie related. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Star Wars, but sorry George, you have met your match.

(I do have to admit that I am a HUGE Tolkien Fan, for anyone to compare HP to LOTR is Blasphemy. Especially since she stole most of her story components from LOTR. If you don't belive me, visit www.tolkien-movies.com (http://www.tolkien-movies.com) and go to the news archives. There is a very good article discussing how she stole from LOTR, Narnia, and others. It's called "A History Lesson From Harry Potter")

Sorry this was so long winded.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

I'm going to have to say that Harry Potter is the the saga of this generation with star wars ep. 1 2 and 3 coming in at a very close second and in third is of course LOTR.... sorry, i'm not that big into LOTR (but i am dying to see the movie) I am more Interested in Harry Potter and Star Wars.........

[EDsoulsurvive*]

i think LotR looks pathetic. i highly doubt that it will break any records because there is an extremely large teenage group who thinks that thi movie looks incredibly stupid, myself included. I did a pole in my high school, asking what movie that people wanted to see in december, and there were literally only about 20 votes for LotR, out of my grade, which has 400 people in it. i got 143 votes for ocean's 11 though, which i think will do well. and i know that LotR will not be the saga of our generation. not a chance in hell...

[Muha]

hey ed... youre gonna be missing quite a lot, man.

read the books, watch the trailers... maybe you'll change your mind.

i assume you wont tho since the book is over 400 pages and youre probably used to goosebump books.

dont bash it if you dont know it.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

also, the HP books are for everyone. basically anyone could read them. LotR however has a more adult appeal, therefore, a smaller audience.

[EDsoulsurvive*]

also, i heard that the 5th HP will be released in may, the title has something to do with a "Pheonix" or something... i'm gonna try and find the article i found this in...

[EDsoulsurvive*]

sorry, my mistake, i found th article in EW. it has been tentatively scheduled for fall 2002 release. it is called "Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix."

[Ender]

Comparing HP to LOTR is like comparing N'SYNC to the Beatles. Popularity does not a good saga make.

[Mike Damone]

Whoa, this topic is getting more feedback on Harry Potter than LOTR. I happen to have just seen Harry Potter and while I was quite impressed with parts of it, I agree heavily with JoBlo's review. I wouldn't put this movie anywhere close to Star Wars and would go as far as to say Goonies(which I think is kind of similar) is much better. I don't doubt HP will make tons of money, but I don't think that makes it a great movie/saga. In my mind, HP probably will outgross FOTR because it has a larger demographic of fans(LOTR will have fewer kids and women.) After both have run there course, I think LOTR will be the saga that becomes a classic. HP is a cute story, but LOTR is an amazing epic journey across a fantasy world that rivals even that of Star Wars.

Finally, since the question is "Will LOTR be the Saga of our generation?", I have to say no simply because the books have been around for so long and have already built a fan base(even HP fans admit they prefer the book's charm over the movie's grandeur.) It is doubtful the movies will cause legions of new fans to suddenly appear and make this a landmark event(as Star Wars was.)

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Muha:
hey ed... youre gonna be missing quite a lot, man.

read the books, watch the trailers... maybe you'll change your mind.

i assume you wont tho since the book is over 400 pages and youre probably used to goosebump books.

dont bash it if you dont know it.</font>

Were talking anout the MOVIE! The books can kiss our asses for all I care..

And try not to insult people on this board...It gets old after a while...

[Horror whore]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LennysLeggs:
A few thoughts on Your Saga discussion:

1st 24hrs the 1st trailer was available - 1.67 million downloads - record.

1st 3 months official website was up - 500 million hits (before they stopped counting)

LOTR Trilogy has been voted #1 book of the 20th century multiple times (most recently beating out Pride and Predjudice, and the Bible in a London poll)

Book sales have tripled in the last 2 years since the movies were announced.

An award winning cast (very well chosen in my opinion)

A gripping, page turning story (not a kiddie bedtime tale)

Millions and millions of fans. Virtually anyone who has taken a literary fiction class in college has read at least one of the books.

I believe LOTR will shatter any and ALL records movie related. Don't get me wrong I LOVE Star Wars, but sorry George, you have met your match.

(I do have to admit that I am a HUGE Tolkien Fan, for anyone to compare HP to LOTR is Blasphemy. Especially since she stole most of her story components from LOTR. If you don't belive me, visit www.tolkien-movies.com (http://www.tolkien-movies.com) and go to the news archives. There is a very good article discussing how she stole from LOTR, Narnia, and others. It's called "A History Lesson From Harry Potter")

Sorry this was so long winded.</font>


Comparing Harry Potter and LOTR is not blasphemy. It's farthest from it. Comparing LOTR to the bible is blasphemy...

[ANTBond007]

Just like to point out that I'm starting to read the Potter books and am on "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." Damn, this is pretty entertaining!

Don't if it's as good as Lord of the Rings or a personal fave for myself, "Star By Star" (a Star Wars book by Troy Denning), but it is pretty damn good...

[rgse]

The Star Wars ccg overwhelmingly outsells the Middle Earth ccg.

[ban all music]

Did anyone actually read the article that he posted?

HP (the movie) was only ok, wasn't really anything special. The best part was Quidditch..the movie climaxed at that point, then we were just left with the leftovers. And does anyone else think that the endings to Harry Potter books are dumb? They're too Scooby-Dooish, Rowling doesn't even give us a chance to solve the mystery. I usually feel cheated and find myself rolling my eyes at the end of an HP book...especially in the movie..they gave no clues to the mystery. And the kids put 2 and 2 together before there was even a second 2...

[Muha]

well, i am talking about the movie here... horror whore.

if the movies are based on the books... then im gonna mention the books.

all i was saying was that he shouldnt bash something he doesnt know... if he read the story and he still didnt like it then he should be entitled to his own opinion. but, if he didnt read the book then he shouldnt say its pathetic..

im sure its really pathetic if the books are critically voted as the greatest of all time... im sure its pathetic just because its "geeky" to like RPGs and all the fantasy stuff... geez... how it makes mad.

[Ender]

Harry Potter is not the saga of our generation. Harry Potter is not even a saga. It's a cute movie (7/10), but it has little if anything to do with Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings is a classic, and Harry Potter is pop culture. That does not mean that Harry Potter is inferior, merely that it is too different from Tolkien to compare the two (see my previous musical analogy). Thus, this is a pointless debate.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LennysLeggs:
I believe LOTR will shatter any and ALL records movie related.
</font>

WHAT??????????????????????? HELL NO, this movie looks fucking awesome but I doubt going to shatter ALL records movie related, Maybe it will shatter a few but come on you know for an absolute fact that LOTR will NOT make more then 600 million dollers at the box office, that of course is a movie record, as you probaly already know that is the highest grossing movie in box-office history, and that record of 600 million (held by Titanic) will NOT fall to LOTR... think about it man..... Thats not very realistic...................

[fredd521]

I didnt even see HP yet so that post i posted earlier. Forget about that.

[Scorchlord]

Were some posts here deleted or something? It seems different to me.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Listen, there just isnt any possibility in HP becoming the saga of this, or any generation. The film was not that good, and think about it - Lord of the Rings will still be read by people all over the world in 200 years,.....will Harry Potter?? I think not, and I am a fan of Harry Potter. A big fan. And I am able to understand that the Lord of the Rings films will be better, the books are better, and more people will appreciate this film. It is a better made film, with excellent actors, excellent story, characters, effects,.....look at its reviews. They`ll tell you. Oh, and as for that "poll". I bet you a large percentage of the students will probably go and see the movie, regardless of how dumb it looks, because they will be on break and have nothing better to do. They like it, and go again with some other friends, and so on, and so forth. People submit to hype, and critics responses, so regardless; alot of people are going to see this movie, and it will make alot of money, and will give many new fans the want to read the books. ......or maybe not, but it is likely. Harry Potter,...will fade away. Star Wars was finished after TPM, no matter how good the other 2 are. So, my answer is yes. I hope at least some of this made a little sense.

[Alf-Life]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Finally, since the question is "Will LOTR be the Saga of our generation?", I have to say no simply because the books have been around for so long and have already built a fan base(even HP fans admit they prefer the book's charm over the movie's grandeur.) It is doubtful the movies will cause legions of new fans to suddenly appear and make this a landmark event(as Star Wars was.)
</font>

Actually, I was referring to the movies becoming the "saga of the generation", although I do agree with your point.


Apart form the above, I agree with Ender, and I can't see why everyone likes Harry Potter so much; in fact, it is, as someone rightly said, pop culture, whereas LOTR is a global phenomenon which has infinite more depth than Harry Potter.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
EDsoulsurvive; "i think LotR looks pathetic"
</font>
I think anyone who's sad enough to poll his fellow classmates about movies and ask over 200 of them without getting his head flushed down the toilet and being locked in his locker (yes, too many America highschool movies for me...) is probably not going to like LOTR anyway.....
Although Ocean's Eleven does look like a fantastic movie.

Muha: LOL @ the Goosebumps dig http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

And, returning back to Ender, I'll finish on this quote which sums up my own opinion, and is worth repeating:

"Comparing HP to LOTR is like comparing N'SYNC to the Beatles. Popularity does not a good saga make."

[Nate6]

News flash guys: Some people actually like Harry Potter more! I, for one, don't necessarily think LOTR is much deeper than Harry Potter. So get off your high horses and respect other people's opinions!

And although I love The Beatles 10,000 times more than 'NSync, some people like 'Nsync's style of music more and think they sing better. So you can't go blasting people because they have a different idea. Let's all just agree to disagree!

[Scorchlord]

The Lord of the Rings isn't that much deeper than Harry Potter? Hokay......

[ak]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Scorchlord:
The Lord Of The Rings isn't that much deeper than Harry Potter? Hokay......</font>

Even though everyone is perfectly entitled to their own opinion, I'm quite baffled by that too Scorchlord.

[dicaprio_travolta_man]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nate6:
News flash guys: Some people actually like Harry Potter more! I, for one, don't necessarily think LOTR is much deeper than Harry Potter. So get off your high horses and respect other people's opinions!

And although I love The Beatles 10,000 times more than 'NSync, some people like 'Nsync's style of music more and think they sing better. So you can't go blasting people because they have a different idea. Let's all just agree to disagree!</font>

NSYNC???????????? What wait a minute what about Backstreet Boys (my favorite band) I know alot of people who think these guy's are better then The Beatles and N'SYNC, there songs are more Haunting and more Beautiful..... Anyway back to the topic..

How could LOTR be the saga of are generation, it's going to be dead in 2 years (theatricly dead), and all those LOTR geek's and Freak's have to talk about something else.....Until those movie making freaks deside to re-release it (that wont happen for like 30 years).. But you see Harry Potter wont be dead for another 6 years, so that's why HP will be the saga of this generation....

[This message has been edited by dicaprio_travolta_man (edited 12-05-2001).]

[Ender]

You can't say that for sure DTM. Star Wars was released thirty years ago and it's still not "dead". And so what if Harry Potter is going to be the flavor of the month for the next six years? That's just stressing quantity over quality, which is not a good formula for success. Six years of crap is not comparable to two years of gold (and I'm not saying that HP is crap, it's just a metaphor).

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dicaprio_travolta_man:
NSYNC???????????? What wait a minute what about Backstreet Boys (my favorite band) I know alot of people who think these guy's are better then The Beatles and N'SYNC, there songs are more Haunting and more Beautiful..... Anyway back to the topic..</font>

OK, OK, Backstreet Boys, whatever. It was just an example.

Anyways, when I said I didn't think LOTR was that much deeper than Harry Potter, I didn't mean that it wasn't a more introspective, interesting, groundbreaking story (because it is) but that maybe people shouldn't take LOTR so seriously. It's entertainment, folks. So of course it's deeper, but it depends on which way you look at "deeper." Harry Potter is basically what every person really is inside (or most, anyway), an underdog just trying to prove himself and adventure. LOTR has its meanings too, but maybe people don't consider these meanings as being more important.

[Scorchlord]

As for the Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings debate, here's something to fuel the argument, from a review I've read:

"In its scope and grand operatic scheme, Lord Of The Rings represents the perfect match between the singular vision of an artist, Jackson, and a mythical-literary text that has influenced generations of readers worldwide in a deeper, more meaningful way than other books, such as Harry Potter. Tolkien's hero, Frodo, may not have the same catchy ring as J.K. Rowling's protagonist, but artistically speaking, since both films were made under the auspices of AOL-Time-Warner, Jackson's picture is head and shoulders above Columbus' children fantasy."

[Terrell]

You guys that keep bringing up the books are killing your argument. Nobody is talking about the books. The books don't have a thing to do with the movies. We are discussing whether the movies will be this generations Star Wars, and the books have no place in the discussion. The movies have to stand on their own.

As to the question, no LOTR will not be the Star Wars of this generation. Not because most people don't think it's good. I personally think the original Star Wars trilogy is better in every respect than LOTR, except maybe in acting, not to mention a hell of a lot more fun and exciting. Even that is closer than most want to think. But this is all besides the point. Here are the reasons LOTR will not ascend to those heights.

1. When Star Wars came out, it set the standard for the sci-fi genre. It was something we had never seen before. It was new, fresh, and astounding. LOTR is not something new. It didn't put audiences in as much awe as Star Wars did. That's not necessarily a fault of LOTR, more an issue of timing. We've pretty much seen it all in movies.

2. Star Wars went on to become the highest grossing film of all-time when it was released. An insane number of tickets were sold, far more than were sold to LOTR. LOTR did not become the highest grossing. Star Wars is the only franchise where every film has made over 290 million dollars domestically. Even after 5 films and 25 years, the films are still pulling in 300+ million. That's pretty powerful, considering TPM was disappointing to many.

3. Star Wars is a part of pop culture, with some of the most memorable characters in any film. Think of all the famous lines in Star Wars that have been quoted time and time again around the world. LOTR is not a part of pop culture. The books are considered classics, but that does not make them a part of pop culture. Go to any city in the world and ask 1000 people who Gandalf, Aragorn, and Frodo are. Then ask the same 1000 people who Darth Vader, Yoda, and Luke Skywalker are. Star Wars would win hands down. That's no slam against LOTR, it's just a testament to the overwhelming popularity of Star Wars and the penetration it has had into our culture.

4. Star Wars had a massive impact on the film industry and an entire generation of people. It changed the way movies were made, as well as changed the way they were viewed. LOTR has not and will not have anywhere near that kind of impact. It's just another big blockbuster.

5. Star Wars are classics that have stood the test of time for 25 years. As Roger Ebert stated, when he thinks of films that will be remembered 100 years from now, Star Wars will be right there with films like Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind. It's debateable if LOTR will stand the test of time that well, and be regarded as well 25 years from now as it is today. The test is what generations who weren't born during the films think of them. But at this point, it's too early to tell. LOTR may hold up for 25 years. We'll see.

So, those are a few of the reasons why LOTR won't be the Star Wars of this generation, nor will it come close to the impact of those films. And that has nothing to do with what you think about either of the films. The books are considered classics. But again, that doesn't have a thing to do with the movies. They are two completely different mediums.

Agree or disagree. That's my thoughts and I'm sticking to it.

As to the question whether LOTR is deep, I didn't see much depth in the story while watching FOTR. It is an incredibly simple tale of good versus evil, with an incredibly simple and linear plot. That's not what I'd call deep. But then again, Star Wars and Harry Potter aren't the deepest stories either. They make you think, but that doesn't necessarily translate to being deep.

[SHREK]

Originally posted by Terrell
You guys that keep bringing up the books are killing your argument. Nobody is talking about the books. The books don't have a thing to do with the movies. We are discussing whether the movies will be this generations Star Wars, and the books have no place in the discussion. The movies have to stand on their own.

As to the question, no LOTR will not be the Star Wars of this generation. Not because most people don't think it's good. I personally think the original Star Wars trilogy is better in every respect than LOTR, except maybe in acting, not to mention a hell of a lot more fun and exciting. Even that is closer than most want to think. But this is all besides the point. Here are the reasons LOTR will not ascend to those heights.

1. When Star Wars came out, it set the standard for the sci-fi genre. It was something we had never seen before. It was new, fresh, and astounding. LOTR is not something new. It didn't put audiences in as much awe as Star Wars did. That's not necessarily a fault of LOTR, more an issue of timing. We've pretty much seen it all in movies.

2. Star Wars went on to become the highest grossing film of all-time when it was released. An insane number of tickets were sold, far more than were sold to LOTR. LOTR did not become the highest grossing. Star Wars is the only franchise where every film has made over 290 million dollars domestically. Even after 5 films and 25 years, the films are still pulling in 300+ million. That's pretty powerful, considering TPM was disappointing to many.

3. Star Wars is a part of pop culture, with some of the most memorable characters in any film. Think of all the famous lines in Star Wars that have been quoted time and time again around the world. LOTR is not a part of pop culture. The books are considered classics, but that does not make them a part of pop culture. Go to any city in the world and ask 1000 people who Gandalf, Aragorn, and Frodo are. Then ask the same 1000 people who Darth Vader, Yoda, and Luke Skywalker are. Star Wars would win hands down. That's no slam against LOTR, it's just a testament to the overwhelming popularity of Star Wars and the penetration it has had into our culture.

4. Star Wars had a massive impact on the film industry and an entire generation of people. It changed the way movies were made, as well as changed the way they were viewed. LOTR has not and will not have anywhere near that kind of impact. It's just another big blockbuster.

5. Star Wars are classics that have stood the test of time for 25 years. As Roger Ebert stated, when he thinks of films that will be remembered 100 years from now, Star Wars will be right there with films like Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind. It's debateable if LOTR will stand the test of time that well, and be regarded as well 25 years from now as it is today. The test is what generations who weren't born during the films think of them. But at this point, it's too early to tell. LOTR may hold up for 25 years. We'll see.

So, those are a few of the reasons why LOTR won't be the Star Wars of this generation, nor will it come close to the impact of those films. And that has nothing to do with what you think about either of the films. The books are considered classics. But again, that doesn't have a thing to do with the movies. They are two completely different mediums.

Agree or disagree. That's my thoughts and I'm sticking to it.

As to the question whether LOTR is deep, I didn't see much depth in the story while watching FOTR. It is an incredibly simple tale of good versus evil, with an incredibly simple and linear plot. That's not what I'd call deep. But then again, Star Wars and Harry Potter aren't the deepest stories either. They make you think, but that doesn't necessarily translate to being deep.


Obviously, you will say that about many other films. You have to consider that classics exist since movies were created. There are movies of our time that will be considered classics in the future, be remembered by generations, and in my opinion, LOTR is the one that has the most chances of becoming the next remembered classic. How can you say that LOTR will not be as popular as STAR WARS? Because it was relased only 8 months ago.......STAR WARS was relased nearly 25 years ago, and obviously it is more popular now and it is part of a culture.
Believe me, I am sure that in 25 years LOTR will be remembered as a great trilogy, and STAR WARS, on the other hand, will be... "less remembered" (the last two episodes have not been very good movies). It is also unfair to say that STAR WARS is better just because it was relased a long time ago in a time when audiences had never seen anything like it. But what if LOTR had been relased before STAR WARS? I bet that STAR WARS wouldn't be that famous now. I love the original STAR WARS trilogy, but I considered FOTR a far superior movie in every single way than any of the three STAR WARS films. And I am a person who did not read LOTR books. That said, both series are different, very different. As for the original question, my answer is that LOTR will become more famous than Harry Potter, much more famous and remembered films.

[dh1989]

LOTR is great, but I also think Harry Potter will be the great saga of our time. It has tons of imagination and I really love the idea of being swept away into a magical school where many mysterious adventures occur. There is something so timeless about that idea. I also think Harry is a great main character. He is kind, understanding, but also not overly goody. He does get mad and even, a few times in the book, considers murdering a man. He is also not the best student. He is not a Quidditch champion, the best student of his year, and loved by all the teachers. He is an average student, who excells at a few things (being a seeker). He is also a tragic hero. His parents were killed and he has had to hear their murders. He also has to deal with excited whispers and eyes on his forehead when he greets a new person. Harry is cool. I am sorry for this rant, but I truly love Harry Potter and friends. This is not to say I dislike LOTR. I loved it! One of the greatest films ever made. The novels are amazing and I think the film had wonderful production values, I just hold Harry closer to my heart.

P.S. One thing I love about Potter is that it made me wish that on my 11th birthday, an owl swooped in and gave me a letter and I went to Hogwarts. Slept in a four-poster bed in my dormitory. Learned magic. Discovered hidden corridors. Befriended a giant and made two great friends. Look out on the misty grounds at dawn. It would have been spectacular. Sorry for another rant!

[dellamorte dellamore]

As far as i'm concerned,this is already stuff of Legend,and the two succesive installments will only solidify my beliefs.


Star Wars was a strange creature,it took some time for it's excellence to be apprecitiated,then it just took off like mad.It wasan original story,Tolkien already had a huge fanbase when PJ undertook this project,so a certain amount of hype preexisted.

Star Wars had to build it's fanbase from word of mouth,it was a whole new universe that noone knew about.

It introduced surround sound,thx processing,brilliant use of miniatures,amazing special effects,compelling 3 dimensional characters you cared about and cheered for,a believable other world,it was epic.


It was something special and it spawned a line of toys and merchandise,the likes of which had never been seen before.


Now you have the LOTR trilogy.The very first time anybody has dared to film an entire trilogy at once.That was not only courageous on the part of PJ,but it exhibited tremendous foresight and uncommonly keen cinematic vision.Not too mention a bold exhuberance that has nothing to do with arrogance but a compassionate confidence that is very rare.


This is the Star Wars of this generation,something that will go down in history as a landmark in cinema(just as SW was in it's time,and what a great time that was),so far ahead of it's time that future generations will be in awe of it's majesty.


The detractors all sound like the same people that badmouthed SW at the time.It's boring,the characters are thin,the narrative is weak,it's cheesy,the acting is sub par,i don't know too many people that actually enjoyed the film.There was even a number of critics that lambasted SW at first.There are always going to be naysayers,but i think they are being somewhat naive too think that this won't eclipse the first with regards to box office and entertainment value.I can almost guarantee it will.This is'nt some lazy,sloppy sequel thrown out to the public to cash in on the first,it's a tremendous accomplished in it's own right,created with passion,love,hard work,and care.



History became legend,legend became myth,this film is the stuff of legends,it's timeless,right up there with Gone with the Wind,Wizard of Oz,Laurence of Arabia,and some other historic pictures that still have following a number of years later.

[Jason Voorhees]

Well said Dellamorte, I agree. No offense intended to Harry Potter fans at all, but the books are fluff imo, just entertaining fluff; That isn't a bad thing, just something that won't stand the test of time (For the record, I like the books myself, they're quite charming and well written), Like LOTR has.

The same is also true of the latest Star Wars films, which desecrate the original trilogy, I mean, Let's face it; They were filled with plot holes, continuity errors, bad acting, atrocious scripts, etc.. They will not be fondly remembered and only devalue the entire Star Wars name.

LOTR is based on some of the best books of our time, and seems to be translating that strong source material into stirring visual epics worthy of those books. I predict that LOTR will be remembered fondly generations from now, whereas Harry Potter won't be remembered at all and Star Wars will be somewhat frowned upon for the awful new trilogy (I mean, some people are already beginning to roll their eyes at the mention of Star Wars, Think of how a few decades may exacerbate this, Though all may be forgiven in time, Who knows?).

Though I do feel that LOTR will be lauded generations from now, I can't seen those films accumulating the same amount of praise that the original Star Wars trilogy has garnered, Those films had an impact on all film making; whereas LOTR will be remembered as amazing films; but nothing truly innovative or groundbreaking. Unless they usher in an era in which high budget blockbusters actually have good acting and stories; but that is unlikely.

Of course, I'm no great shakes at prognostication; These are just my opinions and observations. (Oh and I liked AOTC, though I knew it was a terrible film. TPM on the other hand....).

[Watermelon Man]

I think it is ...
The Matrix could be it to though ...
It hard to say ...
They'll both be great trilogies that people will like in 20 years ... just like Star Wars

[Chris411]

Unfortunately, LOTR won't be the saga of our generation. I believe if the 2nd and third Matrixes deliver, it'll be them. Totally brand new like Star Wars was, and the whole technology aspect draws parallels to the technological steps the planet is taking. I like LOTR a little better, but The Matrix is the next star wars.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I definitely don'tsee The Matrix coming even close to being considered the SW of this generation.

It doesn't have anything resembling what is considered a cinematic epic,it appeals to a very specific demographic(unlike LOTR which has fans of every age),the narrative is simplistic compared to the detailed characters and storylines in LOTR,the fx already look dated,and i think it will be lucky to be more than a curiosity 20 years from now(save for it's rabid fans).There so much more going on in the LOTR trilogy that it dwarfs whatever psuedo philosophy and action sequences Matrix offers.



Just the fact that LOTR was filmed all at once will ensure it's legendary status,forget about the sheer enormity of the world that was created.It's something,the likes of which will not be equalled in quite some time.Unlike Matrix,whose fx and set design have been copied over and over again with relative ease not long after it's initial release.Sometimes in commercials.



I'm not saying i did'nt like The Matrix,but LOTR is so far ahead of the curve that there is just no comparison,in my opinion.

[Jason Voorhees]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
I definitely don'tsee The Matrix coming even close to being considered the SW of this generation.

I have to agree with that. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Matrix fan, It just seems that the film has been parodied, discussed, lauded, and maligned so often that people already consider it passe.

Not to mention the long wait between sequels, that can turn the public off of a franchise as well. I do think the sequels will be good though.

Just my opinions, I could be wrong.

[NuclearMisfit]

do you guys remember a great film treasure by the name of Willow? Good saga there.

[Terrell]

This is the Star Wars of this generation,something that will go down in history as a landmark in cinema(just as SW was in it's time,and what a great time that was),so far ahead of it's time that future generations will be in awe of it's majesty.

Let's not be ridiculous. LOTR is not a landmark in cinema. Citizen Kane was, LOTR most certainly is not. It's also nowhere near as ahead of it's time as Star Wars was, certainlly not enough to keep future generations in awe. And majesty............LOL! Oh well, never heard that term used much with film. It's a good fantasy flick. It doesn't break new ground the way Star Wars did. It's not something new. We've seen about all we can see nowadays.

the narrative is simplistic compared to the detailed characters and storylines in LOTR,the fx already look dated,and i think it will be lucky to be more than a curiosity 20 years from now(save for it's rabid fans).

I would have said the same thing about FOTR. Talk about simplistic narrative, FOTR had one of the most simplistic, linear plotlines I've ever seen. And where are these detailed characters you talk about in FOTR? The character were two-dimensional at best. Character development was non-existent. We did learn much of anything about these characters. They existed to move the story along. Hell, the character development in the Matrix was far better than what I saw in FOTR.

And this is coming from a guy who enjoyed FOTR for what it was, a good action-fantasy flick. But depth there was not. Interesting and detailed characters there was not. And the effects were pretty good, aside from some glaring flaws. But Matrix effects are better.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Yep, definately the Terrell from HTF.

[LAW]

Mark my words.

Here is one way that LOTR is completely following in the footsteps of Star Wars.

The first installment is not the favorite, but most revered as the introduction of the characters and plot. We were seeing the beginning of something that had never been attempted before. Lucas' advantage was he created the characters, Peter Jackson had the responsibility of bringing to life a culture that had been interpreted by many for decades.

The second installment is (and will be in TTT's case) THE FAVORITE; for story, character development, effects, the meat of the story culminating before yout eyes in all it's CGI glory with all the characters breathed to life from the first, only now they're hyperventilating.

The third and last installment is known only for it's scenery, the least liked unbenkownst to most because it is the "last" and because it only exists to tie loose ends to a story we wish wouldn't end.

These movies may not be in the same ballpark in a crossover-generationalist's sense, but they have the same heart.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Dude, just like FotR will be nothing compared to TTT, TTT will be NOTHING compared to RotK. You cant even begin to imagine all the cool shite that is going to be in RotK. A huge battle, much, much, much larger than the one in TTT, and another huge, huge battle. The climax of the film, and tons of drama involving Gollum, and Frodo and Sam. Great moments make up,...pretty much the entirety of RotK, and im positive it will be the same for the film.

[Congerking]

yes you are right. Save the best for last. I just can't wait for the last two movies. they will get better by movie. I saw on ET/Extra/allthesameshows that jackson shot 40 hours for the battle scenes. OH MAN.

[Lou Sytsma]

Thought I'd kick this one back up to the top.

Interesting read since this thread was started before LOTR was released.

Anyone care to revise their opinions?

After 2 uninspired Potter movies, 1 decidely mixed Matrix sequel, 2 soulless Star War prequels - though AOTC was a step up from TPM but I find the whole romance between Anakin and Padme one of the worst in cinematic history, and 2 widely acclaimed LOTR rings movies - how do you look at things now?

LOTR IS the next generational movie. Not just because of SFX. Mostly because it's about people. People and how they act under the worst of conditions. Such a tale is timeless. Such a tale is what LOTR is all about.

[rilocay]

When i was young , my dad showed me the great movies of his time, such as ben hur, laurnece of arabia, statis quo and others i cant remember the name of. I consider The Lord Of The Rings to be thses for us. Then as i got older movies such as the Godfather trilogy were masterpeices of story, something i consider the Matrix to be (sure reloaded was too hyped up, but wait till revolutions to see sum bang!). But definatly the lord of the rings is something to show our kids whent he time comes.

[Scarface98.9]

After seeing Reloaded, we can now safely say The Matrix will definitely NOT be the saga of our generation

[Istari Master]

I say yes it will be the saga of our generation

[Istari Master]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
After seeing Reloaded, we can now safely say The Matrix will definitely NOT be the saga of our generation

LOL!

:D

[ReservoirDog]

I was actually thinking about this last week when I saw TTT again. I now consider the first two films of the saga one of the great wonders of the world. Everytime I watch them I have to ask myself, "How did they pull this off?" Its just such a huge undertaking that leaves me in awe everytime I see them. One day, hundreds of years from now, people will be saying some alien civilization was behind the making of these movies. It is now definitely on par with the Star Wars trilogy.

The Matrix had a chance, but blew it with Reloaded and I wouldnt piss on the Potter movies. The LOTR is where its at. I'm just happy I was able to see them on the big screen. Can't wait for ROTK!

[Alf-Life]

Well, after two films, it's good but it's not Star Wars yet, is it? :)

And when I said "nothing's happened in our generation" I guess we do have this information age and intraweb thingy, so it's not all bad is it? :)