Which actor and actress do you think have dominated films of the 2000s?

If you mean by not being in a bad movie, then it would be Leo of course. And probably Merryl Streep, for performance because she hasn't had as many good movies as good as Leo's. Barely anyone has.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]You can laugh all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he had the leading role in the most ambitious and commercially successful film trilogy in history.Laihendi

Leading role? It was an ensemble cast for f*ck's sake.

Frodo's quest to destroy the ring is the central aspect of the story. Everything and everyone else is auxiliary to that.

You clearly never paid attention to the story then. Maybe you were just wooed by Elijah Wood's big, bright, dreamy blue eyes.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Leading role? It was an ensemble cast for f*ck's sake.worlock77

Frodo's quest to destroy the ring is the central aspect of the story. Everything and everyone else is auxiliary to that.

You clearly never paid attention to the story then. Maybe you were just wooed by Elijah Wood's big, bright, dreamy blue eyes.

Daniel Day Lewis, Sean Penn and Philip Seymour Hoffman come to mind. What's Hoffman doing these days anyhow?thebest31406

He's in The Master and was great in it. He's also signed on to be in the new Hunger Games movie.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Frodo's quest to destroy the ring is the central aspect of the story. Everything and everyone else is auxiliary to that.Laihendi

You clearly never paid attention to the story then. Maybe you were just wooed by Elijah Wood's big, bright, dreamy blue eyes.

Yeah, you really never paid attention to the story.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

You clearly never paid attention to the story then. Maybe you were just wooed by Elijah Wood's big, bright, dreamy blue eyes.

worlock77

Yeah, you really never paid attention to the story.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] His eyes are dreamy, but I was a fan of Tolkien before I was a fan of Wood. For the purposes of the story, Aragorn's exploits are only significant to the extent that they help Frodo destroy the ring. This is why he is no longer present in the book (or movie) after the ring is destroyed and Frodo leaves Gondor. He simply is no longer relevant to the story.Laihendi

Yeah, you really never paid attention to the story.

The idea that Aragorn, of all people, was auxillary to the story for starters. If you can't recognize the importance of Aragorn to, not only 'the Lord of the Rings', but to Tolkien's overall mythology then you haven't paid attention. A writer doesn't build thousands of years of back history to lead up to a character that's "auxillary". Secondly Frodo wouldn't have done sh*t without all those "auxillary" characters. Frodo would not have made it out of the Shire without the aid of his companions. He would not have made it off Weathertop without Aragorn. He would not have made it to Rivendell without the intervention of Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf (or, lamely, Arwen in the film). He would not have made it over or through the Mountains without the Company. He would not have made it beyond Parth Galen without Boromir sacrificing himself to distract the Orcs. He would not have made it through the Emyn Muil, the Marshes or into Mordor without Sam and Gollum. He would not have made it through Ithilien without Faramir and his men. And you seem to be forgetting that Frodo ultimately failed in his quest. He did not destroy the Ring. When the time came he refused to.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yeah, you really never paid attention to the story.

worlock77

The idea that Aragorn, of all people, was auxillary to the story for starters. If you can't recognize the importance of Aragorn to, not only 'the Lord of the Rings', but to Tolkien's overall mythology then you haven't paid attention. A writer doesn't build thousands of years of back history to lead up to a character that's "auxillary". Secondly Frodo wouldn't have done sh*t without all those "auxillary" characters. Frodo would not have made it out of the Shire without the aid of his companions. He would not have made it off Weathertop without Aragorn. He would not have made it to Rivendell without the intervention of Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf (or, lamely, Arwen in the film). He would not have made it over or through the Mountains without the Company. He would not have made it beyond Parth Galen without Boromir sacrificing himself to distract the Orcs. He would not have made it through the Emyn Muil, the Marshes or into Mordor without Sam and Gollum. He would not have made it through Ithilien without Faramir and his men. And you seem to be forgetting that Frodo ultimately failed in his quest. He did not destroy the Ring. When the time came he refused to.

To be clear, I am specifically talking about Lord of the Rings as a novel, not the broader legendarium that it occurs in.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Okay, then would you explain how I'm wrong?Laihendi

The idea that Aragorn, of all people, was auxillary to the story for starters. If you can't recognize the importance of Aragorn to, not only 'the Lord of the Rings', but to Tolkien's overall mythology then you haven't paid attention. A writer doesn't build thousands of years of back history to lead up to a character that's "auxillary". Secondly Frodo wouldn't have done sh*t without all those "auxillary" characters. Frodo would not have made it out of the Shire without the aid of his companions. He would not have made it off Weathertop without Aragorn. He would not have made it to Rivendell without the intervention of Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf (or, lamely, Arwen in the film). He would not have made it over or through the Mountains without the Company. He would not have made it beyond Parth Galen without Boromir sacrificing himself to distract the Orcs. He would not have made it through the Emyn Muil, the Marshes or into Mordor without Sam and Gollum. He would not have made it through Ithilien without Faramir and his men. And you seem to be forgetting that Frodo ultimately failed in his quest. He did not destroy the Ring. When the time came he refused to.

To be clear, I am specifically talking about Lord of the Rings as a novel, not the broader legendarium that it occurs in.

Yet the specific story cannot be seperated from the larger mythology. Without that larger mythology the specific story has little substance.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The idea that Aragorn, of all people, was auxillary to the story for starters. If you can't recognize the importance of Aragorn to, not only 'the Lord of the Rings', but to Tolkien's overall mythology then you haven't paid attention. A writer doesn't build thousands of years of back history to lead up to a character that's "auxillary". Secondly Frodo wouldn't have done sh*t without all those "auxillary" characters. Frodo would not have made it out of the Shire without the aid of his companions. He would not have made it off Weathertop without Aragorn. He would not have made it to Rivendell without the intervention of Glorfindel, Elrond and Gandalf (or, lamely, Arwen in the film). He would not have made it over or through the Mountains without the Company. He would not have made it beyond Parth Galen without Boromir sacrificing himself to distract the Orcs. He would not have made it through the Emyn Muil, the Marshes or into Mordor without Sam and Gollum. He would not have made it through Ithilien without Faramir and his men. And you seem to be forgetting that Frodo ultimately failed in his quest. He did not destroy the Ring. When the time came he refused to.

worlock77

To be clear, I am specifically talking about Lord of the Rings as a novel, not the broader legendarium that it occurs in.

Yet the specific story cannot be seperated from the larger mythology. Without that larger mythology the specific story has little substance.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I'm not saying Frodo is an independent action hero would single-handedly destroyed Sauron and saved Middle-Earth. I'm saying that characters like Glorfindel, Aragorn, Sam, and Gollum are only even included in the book because they helped Frodo carry out his quest.

To be clear, I am specifically talking about Lord of the Rings as a novel, not the broader legendarium that it occurs in.

Laihendi

Yet the specific story cannot be seperated from the larger mythology. Without that larger mythology the specific story has little substance.

No, the novel cannot be seperated from the mythology. That's why Tolkien went to such great pains to include extensive notes on the mythology in the novel.

Will Smith.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]Daniel Day Lewis, Sean Penn and Philip Seymour Hoffman come to mind. What's Hoffman doing these days anyhow?Author_Jerry