Why LOTR?

[CECAA850]

CAS, your avatar sucks, find a nice Klipsch one and get along. Carl

[colterphoto1]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG!?!?!?

I just recently borrowed my friend's LOTR extended versions and while I must say they have a certain grandeur and do look and sound very impressive on my HT system, I am more a fan of the bygone era of film that Tbrennan mentioned. I probably would not purchase these LOTR movies, not because of their production values, which I think excellent, but because I do not identify with the story line or find the endless killing of Orks to be entertainment to my liking. Some care more for more human interest stories, prettier scener, humour, etc. As a photographer, I happen to really like black and white movies and the demands it places on the lighting and camera work.

Which is superior? The beauty is that it's open to personal taste. Let's face it, as a group we tend to watch and listen on a far more cerebral level than the general public. I was at a live holiday spectacular show recently and commented to my date about the 20 cordless mics in use and lighting cues. She says: 'can't you just relax and enjoy the music?'. That's the key- we find different things enjoyable.

This is why someone who listens to classical or jazz music may prefer a certain tube amp/ Khorn combination while I and my Led Zeppelin prefer Yamaha SS and Cornwalls. Even under the demands of THX specs, there are some who would prefer Heritage HT, some who insist that Reference is the only way to go, direct vs bipolar surrounds, Monster vs zipcord, the list goes on and on.

I, and I think others, are here to exchange stories of what WE enjoy and attempt to pass it on to others. The Forum is not a pulpit to preach from, nor can we force our views on another Forum member. This goes against the principles of this community IMHO, so CUT IT OUT ALREADY, will ya!

Thank you,

Michael

[Zargathos]

Well, I guess I'll just have to put all three LOTR extended edition DVD's back on the shelf, as to not offend anyone. Looks as though I'll have to start playing my copies of the Star Wars original trilogy over and over instead.

Sucks to be me.

[Marvel]

Tom,

I am willing to bet that most have never heard the old soundtracks in their proper setting. Like hearing or seeing South Pacific after it was in the theaters and before HT was out. Then you were stuck with a (maybe) 19 inch TV with built in speakers. And most TV stations left the color burst on when showing Black and White films. A less than optimal viewing. And most of the soundtrack albums at the time were played back on those fold down turntable stereos with a six inch speaker. That's all we had while I was growing up.

The old B&W films projected with a carbon arc lamp are simply stunning in appearance.

As for LOTR, CAS misses the point. Go back fifty years and you didn't have Dungeons and Dragons per se. LOTR was written as quite the Christian epic, good against evil, doing the right thing even when there is no hope. There is a lot of subtlety in the three books, more of which comes out in the extended films, only available on the DVDs. I love them. However, there were cinematic gaffes. Most of the images of the trolls and orcs, were taken from Tolkien's own sketches. Real Tolkien junkies have trashed the films pretty soundly, but I think they also miss the point.

The movies (LOTR) are far from perfect. If you ever read Dr. Zhivago, you would wonder that they were ever able to make a movie out of it, and it was only one volume.

My home theater viewing takes place on a 13 inch tv. The audio is so so.

Marvel

[gcoker]

May the Force be with You...Sorry wrong movie

[Olorin]

----------------

On 12/26/2004 8:21:48 PM TBrennan wrote:

Olorin---People don't have to suffer in silence, if a fella wants to discuss pictures he doesn't like he gets to. It's called CRITICISM and is rightfully seen as an important thing. And Christ knows these LOTR pictures need some criticism.

What, would you rather sit around with a bunch of head-nodding, hand-lubed LOTR fans talking about how swell it is? No dissent allowed?

----------------

"Retarded LOTR films," "nerdy dungeons and dragons . . . ." That's criticism? No Tom, that's invective. CAS's post lacked civility and any hint of thought or insight. You may have noted I suggested he could have taken a constructive approach, had criticism or dialog really been his intent.

The films leave planty of room for criticism, so dissent all you like. All I ask is that you engage your brain first, and keep the hand lubing to yourself.

[TBrennan]

Olorin---Well said.

[CAS]

----------------

"Retarded LOTR films," "nerdy dungeons and dragons . . . ." That's criticism? No Tom, that's invective. CAS's post lacked civility and any hint of thought or insight. You may have noted I suggested he could have taken a constructive approach, had criticism or dialog really been his intent.

The films leave planty of room for criticism, so dissent all you like. All I ask is that you engage your brain first, and keep the hand lubing to yourself.

----------------

I have plenty of thoughts on why the movies didn't attract my attention, however it seems sometimes that in the fog of all praise and worship I had to symbolically yell out. Regardless of the way my original post stands, I can speak of the extreme overacting, poor choice of casting, overuse of CGI, and overdramatising. Not to mention the fact that this battle is the most dramatic...no THIS battle is the most dramatic...no THIS battle is the most dramatic...Orcs, giant talking trees, dwarfs, which one is the last fight?. Talk about anticlimactic. And the entire relationship between those two hobbits and the slinky bald thing really became annoying after 3 freaking movies.

I have the right to severly dislike a movie if I feel. And I never told anyone they couldn't like it. And I also will continue to express my opinion about inanimate objects in any way I feel appropriate.

P.S. I would also welcome the mention that any one of the films I feel are great are really piles of junk. He**, I didn't make em. Have at it!

And I'll continue to display pics of ID and Pirates of the Caribbean on my HT display pics(oh, did I mention I like anything Disney makes no matter how cheesy?).

[damonrpayne]

Well, for what its worth:

Our films today relfect our society very well. This is a marketing glitz driven cultrue. The fact that most people under age 25 accept now that musical groups are assembled by record labels for marketing purposes (rather than coming together to make music) indicates that we don't care.

There is a great deal of CGI and Bass, and it could be argued that those things make up for things that are more "real" and profound. CGI has made it very easy to do big things, are we ever likely to see battles on screen filmed in Kurasawa fashion? Probably not. People go to see big explosions and pretty people on screen, Integrity is not something that's valued much in any aspect of our lives anymore. Sadly this is now true even of our art, if it can be called that.

With that being said, the LOTR movies are by far my favorite films ever created. The CGI is far more real to me than say, the StarWars prequels, and at least Jackson took the trouble to build elaborate miniatures for things (like minas tirith) rather than leaning entirely on CGI.

I wonder, if CGI were utterly indistinguishable from 75mm film, would people even bother to have actors and sets?

[TBrennan]

CAS---I found Sean Astin especially annoying. And some things do go on and on and on and.....

Ford or Hawks could have cut the crap made all 3 pictures into a better, single, oh, 2 and a half hour picture.

Like in The Searchers, when Charley McCory makes his move on Martin Pauley's girl. No big conversation about Martin away chasing Comanches, how Charley can love her better---yada-yada. Nope, Ford simply has Charley (Ken Curtis) walk over to Laurie staring out a window, strum his guitar and sing in his unexpectedly fine voice "gone again, skip-to-my-lou....."

Now that's making pictures.

[meuge]

----------------

On 12/27/2004 2:59:04 PM TBrennan wrote:

What, would you rather sit around with a bunch of head-nodding, hand-lubed LOTR fans talking about how swell it is?

----------------

I don't know why you bother adding post to this thread. Your opinion became irrelevant after this post.

Anyone is free to post their opinion, and criticisms of a movie. However, I am frankly annoyed at this cheap insult. I happen to like LOTR movies as well as the books and I consider this a personal attack.

[CAS]

----------------

On 12/27/2004 3:19:33 PM meuge wrote:

----------------

On 12/27/2004 2:59:04 PM TBrennan wrote:

What, would you rather sit around with a bunch of head-nodding, hand-lubed LOTR fans talking about how swell it is?

----------------

I don't know why you bother adding post to this thread. Your opinion became irrelevant after this post.

Anyone is free to post their opinion, and criticisms of a movie. However, I am frankly annoyed at this cheap insult. I happen to like LOTR movies as well as the books and I consider this a personal attack.

----------------

I don't know why. First of all, the point was made to someone else. Second, if you find that a personal attack then I find the opinions of those who own blue Mustangs to have personally attacked me since I prefer red ones.

TBrennan:

Much agreed. The way they used to cut to the chase was great. You're gonna shoot him? Then shoot him! You're gonna kiss her? Then kiss her!

"Oh god, I wish I was a loofa."

[TBrennan]

Meuge whined "However, I am frankly annoyed at this cheap insult. I happen to like LOTR movies as well as the books and I consider this a personal attack."

You consider that a personal attack? Your life seems way too refined if you think so. To paraphrase Longstreet your flanks are as tender as a virgin's.

So quit being such a ninnyish old schoolmarm already.

[skonopa]

----------------

On 12/26/2004 1:22:06 PM CAS wrote:

I'm just curious why whenever somebody posts their home theater pics (which I do enjoy, don't get me wrong) they have to display any one of the retarded LOTR films on their screen. It just ruins the experience when I see that nerdy, dungeons and dragons, x-men, LOTR, everybody speaks with a British accent garbage. Not that I don't like the Brits (I'm with ya, Tony)

must be decaff this morning...

----------------

The reason that I used them is because I happen to like the movies. I find them hardly "retarded" or "nerdy".

Are they the best movies out there? Probably not, but to me, they were some of the best movies to come out in the last few years.

Appearantly, Meta-Critic's all-time highest scores seem to agree:

"Fellowship" came in at 17 with a score of 93

"Return of the King" came in at 26 with a score of 92

"Two Towers" came in at 45 with a score of 90

Not the "greatest", but still very respectable. Whether one likes these movies or not, there is no denying that these three movies will go down in history as classics. Granted, "Meta-Critic" may not be the end-all-and-be all of movie ratings, but I found it to be a pretty good indicator of what people are generally saying about modern films (within the last 30 or so years).

On the same token, I never really cared for "Gone with the Wind", finding, it pretty boring, but it certainly is considered a classic.

[meuge]

----------------

On 12/27/2004 7:23:14 PM TBrennan wrote:

Meuge whined "However, I am frankly annoyed at this cheap insult. I happen to like LOTR movies as well as the books and I consider this a personal attack."

You consider that a personal attack? Your life seems way too refined if you think so. To paraphrase Longstreet your flanks are as tender as a virgin's.

So quit being such a ninnyish old schoolmarm already.

----------------

I rest my case.

[toddvj]

Cas, say what you want about LOTR or any movie, for that matter. I don't take personal offense. I don't think it's cool to use the word Retarded, though. Some of us might have family, that we love, that are mentally challenged. It's just not a cool word to use. And come on, you "never meant to strike a nerve?" Please.

Anyway, I bought the Lawrence of Arabia Special Edition, and it was probably the most boring movie I've ever seen. I guess the fact that it is a "classic," and shot on 70mm film didn't quite make up for how boring it was.

I'll take LOTR any day of the week.

That's not to say I don't like any old movies, I think The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, the Godfather are great movies, I just don't like movies simply because they are old, or because people say I should. I also didn't like Taxi Driver, 2001, Doctor Zhivago, or even *gasp* The Usual Suspects.

You guys who think a movie has to be old to be good should check out Braveheart, Pulp Fiction, Tombstone, Dances with Wolves. These are great movies that have been made in the last 15 years.

[CAS]

----------------

On 12/28/2004 3:16:10 AM toddvj wrote:

Cas, say what you want about LOTR or any movie, for that matter. I don't take personal offense. I don't think it's cool to use the word Retarded, though. Some of us might have family, that we love, that are mentally challenged. It's just not a cool word to use. And come on, you "never meant to strike a nerve?" Please.

Anyway, I bought the Lawrence of Arabia Special Edition, and it was probably the most boring movie I've ever seen. I guess the fact that it is a "classic," and shot on 70mm film didn't quite make up for how boring it was.

I'll take LOTR any day of the week.

That's not to say I don't like any old movies, I think The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, the Godfather are great movies, I just don't like movies simply

because

they are old, or because people say I should. I also didn't like Taxi Driver, 2001, Doctor Zhivago, or even *gasp* The Usual Suspects.

You guys who think a movie has to be old to be good should check out Braveheart, Pulp Fiction, Tombstone, Dances with Wolves. These are great movies that have been made in the last 15 years.

----------------

I'll second Tombstone. I hardly consider old movies great because of their age. The quality of a movie rests in just that. The quality.

[Zargathos]

Speaking of good westerns, I'd be more than happy to watch a Sergio Leone film on my setup any day of the week. If you don't know what those films are, you're missing out.

BTW, if you don't like the LOTR films, fine. I realise nothing I can say (type) or do will change that. You don't have to like it, it's your loss, I suppose. What I can't understand is why some people think it necessary to use caustic language to describe their dislike of a film, and use thinly veiled insults at those who disagree.

"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak."

-Michel de Montaigne

[TBrennan]

Yes, Tombstone was a very good picture and IMO the best Western made since The Outlaw Josey Wales which was the best Western since The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Dances With Wolves however was mawkish trash and one of the phoniest depictions of Indians ever put on the screen.

Though I do think that Costner's latest Western, Open Range, was very good, very good indeed.

Braveheart was idiotic. I can go into detail but for now I'll merely assert.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 12/27/2004 9:02:01 PM skonopa wrote:

The reason that I used them is because I happen to like the movies. I find them hardly "retarded" or "nerdy".

----------------

But Steve, that's because you're a nerd. (KIDDING!!!!)

Seriously, though. A pure fantasy film has its place, and that's exactly what the LOTR series is - pure fantastical check-your-brain-at-the-door epic. If you don't care for authors like Tolkien, Terry Brooks (how friggin cool would the Shanara trilogy on the big screen be?!) et al, then you probably shouldn't bother watching these movies.

I, for one, grew up watching fantasy epics - I was 5 when Star Wars first hit the theaters, 6 when Star Trek: The Original Motion Picture dropped, etc, etc, and I naturally got hooked. I love epic fantasy films, because it's fun for me to just shut down the "reality" portion of my brain and enjoy a good yarn.

So you don't. Great, good for you, don't watch the damned things and don't ***** about those of us who like that sort of thing.

On the subject of B&W and low-budget films - Tom, did you happen to see Pi? Great modern filmwork, in edgy black-and-white, with deliberately oversaturated lighting to enhance the eerie quality of this bizarre storyline, and some really creative camera work, especially in light of the shoestring budget...