Do you consider the Lord Of The Rings trilogy a modern film classic?

Saying that the books are better than the movies is totally unnecessary, but as adaptations the movies are absolutely astonishing. Everyone involved in the trilogy did a great job and showed great respect for Tolkien's work.

Pierst179

Well, the first book was pretty boring most of the time. I mean, the whole thing with Tom Babidil (whatever his name was) was just completely random and off putting. Not to mention, there are just pages after pages describing them walking across Middle Earth.

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

Say whatever you will about Cameron, but the man is a marketing genius. How else do you get two films in the two highest grossing spots in history.

CBR600-RR

Yes, marketing genius, he should do marketing, not directing, he's not good enough. I thought Avatar was 7/10 at best.

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

/p>

Say whatever you will about Cameron, but the man is a marketing genius. How else do you get two films in the two highest grossing spots in history.

MystikFollower

[QUOTE="Pierst179"]

Saying that the books are better than the movies is totally unnecessary, but as adaptations the movies are absolutely astonishing. Everyone involved in the trilogy did a great job and showed great respect for Tolkien's work.

xionvalkyrie

Well, the first book was pretty boring most of the time. I mean, the whole thing with Tom Babidil (whatever his name was) was just completely random and off putting. Not to mention, there are just pages after pages describing them walking across Middle Earth.

Yes they are a modern classic. Ignore all the haters.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

Its pretty obvious. Its what the art of film is all about. Its a visual art, and Avatar did something no movie has ever done visually. This is why the film is getting tremendous amounts of praise from some critics. It might change the film industry forever.

Avatar gets the hate for its familiar story, but thats not what the movie is about. Its about the incredible experience of the visuals. I guarantee you, Avatar is going to be bigger than LOTR in the years to come.

Samurai_Xavier

Besides lets not forget that Avatar utilises 3D projection, something which was not widespread when LOTR came out 8-6 years ago.

Whether it was praised the same or more is irrelevant. Avatar has done more for filmmaking than any film in a long, long time.

What about Gollum? I think that was a pretty big step for filmmaking

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

Say whatever you will about Cameron, but the man is a marketing genius. How else do you get two films in the two highest grossing spots in history.

Samurai_Xavier

Yes, marketing genius, he should do marketing, not directing, he's not good enough. I thought Avatar was 7/10 at best.

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

No I don't, but I know what a good movie is. Duncan Jones, who directed Moon is better than Cameron, Moon was a brilliant film, and it was low budget.
I just don't see how his movies are rated so high, Avatar was average, it was a cliche storyline, the action was OTT, I laughed at people and animals dying, why? because it was overdone, I didn't care about the Na'vi dying, that's how OTT it got.
The colonel also ruined the film, but in a good way, it was funny.

Yes, to make a movie or movie series widely considered as good as the books is a miracle in itself.

Yes. The cinematography is great, it's based on a highly influential piece of literature, has a great musical score, and has some of the best epic battle scenes I've ever seen.PannicAtack

Some of the best??? Pff... The Seige of Gondor/The Battle of Pelennor Fields is the best :D

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

CBR600-RR

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Yes, marketing genius, he should do marketing, not directing, he's not good enough. I thought Avatar was 7/10 at best.

CBR600-RR

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

No I don't, but I know what a good movie is. Duncan Jones, who directed Moon is better than Cameron, Moon was a brilliant film, and it was low budget.
I just don't see how his movies are rated so high, Avatar was average, it was a cliche storyline, the action was OTT, I laughed at people and animals dying, why? because it was overdone, I didn't care about the Na'vi dying, that's how OTT it got.
The colonel also ruined the film, but in a good way, it was funny.

Avatar may not have been his strongest movie storywise, but he's already established himself a legacy as an incredible director. And Avatar for whatever you may say about the story has pushed A LOT of boundaries with CGI technology and digital 3D technology that are now going to be technology used in many action films to come.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="MystikFollower"]

Say whatever you will about Cameron, but the man is a marketing genius. How else do you get two films in the two highest grossing spots in history.

Samurai_Xavier

Yes, marketing genius, he should do marketing, not directing, he's not good enough. I thought Avatar was 7/10 at best.

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

valgear

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

Yeah I guess I do, but I don't really enjoy the movies.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

valgear

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

Good choice of films, except Scarface, I thought that film was completely boring.
I prefer LOTR to Star Wars, mainly because of the characters, and battles. They are great films.

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Yes, marketing genius, he should do marketing, not directing, he's not good enough. I thought Avatar was 7/10 at best.

CBR600-RR

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

No I don't, but I know what a good movie is. Duncan Jones, who directed Moon is better than Cameron, Moon was a brilliant film, and it was low budget.
I just don't see how his movies are rated so high, Avatar was average, it was a cliche storyline, the action was OTT, I laughed at people and animals dying, why? because it was overdone, I didn't care about the Na'vi dying, that's how OTT it got.
The colonel also ruined the film, but in a good way, it was funny.

Its nice to see we all have opinions. Moon to me was nothing special. Just like Avatar, it borrowed heavily from other films, like 2001.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

valgear

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

I don't really care about what other people consider to be classics. With that said, I know I love the LoTR trilogy and could care less if other people didn't like the plot or the special effects or the color of Gandalf's beard. The movie is one of my all time favorites with Brave Heart.

Never really cared for Stars Wars. I was more of a fan of the original Star Trek.

Thought Avatar = Independence Day. Great special effects for the period of time when it came out. A few years later when they have movies with better special effects everyone will forget about it. Story is stupid. I would simply have nuked the planet and came back for the ore when all life on it was gone. Guns > tribal Indians with bows and arrows.

I LOVE LOTR I CANT WAIT FOR BLURAY

Its nice to see we all have opinions. Moon to me was nothing special. Just like Avatar, it borrowed heavily from other films, like 2001.

Samurai_Xavier

Space Odyssey was godly, it was brilliant for it's time, it's one of my favourites. Also has one of the best scenes ever in one part of the movie.

I LOVE LOTR I CANT WAIT FOR BLURAY

moe_rice

Of course it is. because I will show it to my kids, just like my parents showed me star wars...

gamedude2020

Its nice to see we all have opinions. Moon to me was nothing special. Just like Avatar, it borrowed heavily from other films, like 2001.

Samurai_Xavier

There's a huge difference with that comparison. People accuse Avatar for pretty much having the exact same story as Dances with Wolves and all of the other films that are tossed around. For Moon, it takes it's influence from 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien, but it's story and themes have almost nothing to do with the films mentioned.

Definitely, best trilogy ever made in my opinion. I own all three movies and I still find them entertaining to watch this day. They easily top out my list of favorite movies.

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

No. I think they're terrible films.

valgear

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

J.R.R. Tolkien basically invented the fantasy genre. :|

[QUOTE="moe_rice"]

I LOVE LOTR I CANT WAIT FOR BLURAY

enterawesome

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]Its nice to see we all have opinions. Moon to me was nothing special. Just like Avatar, it borrowed heavily from other films, like 2001.

sammyjenkis898

There's a huge difference with that comparison. People accuse Avatar for pretty much having the exact same story as Dances with Wolves and all of the other films that are tossed around. For Moon, it takes it's influence from 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien, but it's story and themes have almost nothing to do with the films mentioned.

Plus Sam Rockwell = epic win...

In any case... Avatar may have been very similar in story to other movies... but it was still a much better movie than Dances with Wolves...

[QUOTE="valgear"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

chessmaster1989

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

J.R.R. Tolkien basically invented the fantasy genre. :|

You probably have no idea how to direct a film yourself. How could you know if he is or isnt a good enough director?

From a technical standpoint, Cameron is probably in the top 5 most respected directors in the world. Probably #1 after making Avatar.

Samurai_Xavier

And I miss the part where I have to have knowledge of making something in order to judge it.....

...or the part where a film is good based only on its direction/its visuals and so on.

Maybe if they were one hour less I could sit through them without annoyance, but 3 hour movies are not my thing.

[QUOTE="valgear"]

[QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

I'm curious to what you think are good films?

chessmaster1989

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

J.R.R. Tolkien basically invented the fantasy genre. :|

Hes talking about the LOTRs movies, not Tolkein. Which is ironic in that star wars and all the other movies he described are based on the basic story outline created by Tolkein.

Whether it was praised the same or more is irrelevant. Avatar has done more for filmmaking than any film in a long, long time.

, or even something more fictitious like Star Wars.Stumpt25

Considering I could still sit through all ten hours of it and love it the whole time, yes.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="valgear"]

I actually like my films to have plots. Films that I consider classics would be films that were genre defining such as Psycho, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Shawshank, etc. THOSE are classics. You can't tell what will become a classic. Look at Scarface. Everyone hated it when it was released, now its one of the biggest films in the world. In my opinion, LOTR will and should never be considered a classic because it did absolutely nothing new. The only thing good about them were Christopher Lee's preformance. Even with that, hes done much better. The LOTR trilogy will never be like the Star Wars trilogy or the Godfather trilogy. Those films defined their genre, LOTR just took chunks and pieces, slapped them together and managed to only get a 9 hour walking scene through out the trilogy. I can't see how these films are as good as people make them to be.

gamedude2020

Hes talking about the LOTRs movies, not Tolkein. Which is ironic in that star wars and all the other movies he described are based on the basic story outline created by Tolkein.

Yes I do for many reasons. First off they get the story (and I think it's the best story of all time)almost completely right in terms of what happened and how the characters acted in terms of themselves and relationships with each other. Also because with literally each scene the movie takes it's time and never cuts away from any of too fast so that it can get to the exciting bits. Another reason I think it qualifies as classic is because I have an incredibly hard time choosing which one I like best. For instance when I try to choose I usually think how great (and massive) the battle scenes in ROTK are and think that that is why it's the best one. However then I start to think about the TT and consider that it also had a massive battle at Mordor and just how many cool moves were pulled off during the movie such as Legolas shooting arrows while sliding down a staircase on a shield or Aragorn and Gimli sneaking around the side to fight off the orcs so their side could build a better barrier. Then finally I think of the FotR and think about the nice times in the shire and getting to meet all of the characters for the first time and Gandalf's fireworks and the Balrog fight. Also the forging fellowship.

By now I have forgotten what the original question was exactly.

I can't wait for The Hobbit to come out.

yes. theyre probably the best fantasy movies ever made.

No. The BEST modern film classic. ;)

Eh I better put on my flameshield here, but I thought the LOTR movies were good and well put together, but boy there is something about them that works better than ambien on me :P. I saw all 3 in the theater and fell asleep bout 3/4 through each film. For my money I'd say LOTR film trilogy did not make an impact like say the original Star Wars trilogy did, but it will be fondly remembered as a classic to many no doubt. Torture for me is watching all 3 LOTR extended editions consecutively ;)