|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NewsfromBree
spymaster@theonering.net
Dec 18 2016, 4:58pm
Post #1 of 14
(2295 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The lasting significance of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy
|
Can't Post
|
|
 TheOneRing.net isn't the only news site reporting on the 15th anniversary of the release of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring this week. Leigh Blickley, Senior Editor at The Huffington Post, takes us on a bit of a walk down memory lane in her article that looks back at the many people and circumstances that came together to produce the fantasy classic.
"Fifteen years ago, Hollywood was abuzz as director Peter Jackson geared up to release the first installment of his screen adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy novel, The Lord of the Rings. The film series was the talk of the town, considering Tolkien fans were chomping at the bit to see Jackson's cinematic imagining of Middle-earth. The somewhat unknown filmmaker took on one of the most expensive and ambitious projects in cinema history, and many worried he would flounder in bringing the beloved epic to life.
Well, Jackson delivered something far more incredible than what anyone was expecting."
We have to agree with you, Leigh! But, we're not the only ones. Later in the week we'll take a look a the many reviews of stunned (in a good way) critics and fans alike. In the mean time, you can read the full HuffPost article here.
(This post was edited by entmaiden on Dec 19 2016, 1:52pm)
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Dec 19 2016, 2:40am
Post #2 of 14
(2248 views)
Shortcut
|
Of All Time. This thing will last until things stop being things and time ceases keeping track of itself.
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 19 2016, 1:55pm
Post #4 of 14
(2215 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My memory of the opening is different
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
While the Fellowship movie was anticipated, the major buzz was about the first Harry Potter movie. In fact, many Tolkien fans were concerned that Fellowship would be overlooked because all the attention was going to be on Harry Potter. The film didn't open to massive audiences, but slowly built until it was bringing in $100 million US every weekend. In many large cities, the movie ran until March, and the total box office far surpassed Harry Potter.
|
|
|
TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan
Dec 19 2016, 2:12pm
Post #5 of 14
(2209 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That's right, and I remember this being the concern at the time
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For me, I had no built-in anticipation for FotR and, like many, was much more looking forward to the first HP adaptation. No way I could have predicted how that was going to turn out, and in two year's time, LotR had dethroned the original Star Wars as the fantasy trilogy (further rendering the concurrently playing prequels a footnote) and HP had no chance of catching up - in quality only, of course. 3 billion dollars notwithstanding, that little scarred wizard made an ungodly amount of money...
(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Dec 19 2016, 2:16pm)
|
|
|
Isilmo
The Shire
Dec 19 2016, 3:02pm
Post #6 of 14
(2199 views)
Shortcut
|
The movie I was really hyped about wasn't Potter nor Lord Of The Rings. It was Steven Spielberg's A.I. Although A.I. let me down and I never ever watched Potter,LOTR blew me away. It still does. Can't believe it's been 15 years.
|
|
|
Silmaril
Rohan
Dec 20 2016, 8:10am
Post #7 of 14
(2147 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Still the best movie I've ever seen!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Cool, to see those old trailers. Magical!
|
|
|
ghost_matt
Rivendell
Dec 21 2016, 3:32am
Post #8 of 14
(2110 views)
Shortcut
|
that there was almost no hype among the general public. Everything was Harry Potter. I hardly saw any TV spots for it, and when they did show something it was those cheesy Burger King commercials for the glass goblets ("Behold Gandalf the Wizard! Now he is not just to behold! Now he can be HELD!") that made it look like a kids movie!! After all the years of waiting, opening day felt like just a regular day until I saw the movie.
I know myself and other Tolkien fans were more hyped for LOTR, but you also didn't know how it was going to turn out. All the promo stuff for Harry Potter was PERFECT while LOTR had a cheesy teaser trailer ("You will find adventure or adventure will find you!") and a generic teaser poster of Elijah Wood holding the Ring that just as easily could have been the poster for a horror movie. There were also still rumors of Arwen at Helm's Deep and a pic of Lurtz that showed him BLUE (really? A blue orc?). Turned out that was just the lighting under Isengard...
Also I knew someone at school who had gotten to read both the Harry Potter and LOTR scripts. She loved HP but said LOTR was "disappointing, at least at the stage where it was when I read it".
(This post was edited by ghost_matt on Dec 21 2016, 3:33am)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Dec 21 2016, 5:05pm
Post #9 of 14
(2071 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It legitimized the high fantasy film genre. /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
******************************************
Dear Necromancers:
Why do you bother summoning human corpses when dinosaurs are an option?
|
|
|
LittleHobbit
Lorien
Jan 7 2017, 1:09pm
Post #10 of 14
(1943 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How would you rate the following trilogies?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Star Wars original trilogy, LotR trilogy, and the Hobbit trilogy? 
|
|
|
jlj93byu
Rivendell
Jan 9 2017, 4:14pm
Post #11 of 14
(1920 views)
Shortcut
|
Star Wars original trilogy, LotR trilogy, and the Hobbit trilogy?
In terms of sheer enjoyment (for me), I'd go LOTR, Hobbit, then Star Wars.
But from a more objective standpoint, if I was to rate them as a whole--the totality of their influence, technical achievement, etc.--I'd place LOTR first, then Star Wars, then Hobbit.
LOTR broke far more new ground in filmmaking than Star Wars did, even if Star Wars has had a larger cultural influence. Nonetheless, LOTR did more for an existing work and entire genre than Star Wars did. Star Wars helped the sci-fi genre, but not as much, I feel, as LOTR did for fantasy. LOTR ultimately brought home an Oscar win for its genre (and 3 nominations), while Star Wars only managed 1 nomination without a win. From an awards standpoint, there's no debating that LOTR garnered far more attention and recognition.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 9 2017, 8:42pm
Post #12 of 14
(1914 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR broke far more new ground in filmmaking than Star Wars did, even if Star Wars has had a larger cultural influence.
Sorry, but I have to dispute the first half of this statement. Largely through the original Star Wars trilogy, the innovations of Lucasfilm and Industrial Light & Magic brought movie special effects screaming out of the past. Weta has managed to build admirably on that foundation while developing its own innovations, but give credit where credit is due. It all started in 1977.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 9 2017, 8:44pm)
|
|
|
Simon L. de Paiva
Bree
Jan 12 2017, 12:23am
Post #13 of 14
(1867 views)
Shortcut
|
It may be just me, but I always found that the special effects in the original "Star Wars" trilogy are very outdated. None of that is used anymore today. Modern visual effects as we know today, or computer generated imagery, CGI, had its birth ( that I am aware of) in 1991 and 1993 with "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" and "Jurassic Park" respectively. The latter used a combination of animatronic dinosaurs and fully rendered CGI dinosaurs, giving birth to the famous T-Rex. If it wasn't for that groundbreaking work of ILM in the early 1990's there would be no LOTR, no cave troll in Moria, no Balrog, no Mûmakil at Pellenor Fields, and especially no Gollum.
There is a PJ quote, it's probably on his IMDB page, where he says that, only after he watched "Jurassic Park", he thought that the technology was advanced enough for LOTR to be made. I know early technological advances were made in 1977 , but the leap came only with CGI in the early 1990's. And I'm not saying that LOTR is entirely dependent on CGI, I know there are other techniques employed brilliantly in the trilogy that are pre- CGI, like the gorgeous bigiatures. I'm simply stating that without the birth of CGI in those two films I mentioned, LOTR could not have been made.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 12 2017, 2:16am
Post #14 of 14
(1857 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We need to keep things in context.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We can't compare the original Star Wars to modern films; we need to compare it to the films of its day. In the late 1970s and '80s ILM was at the cutting edge of movie special effects. It was to film then what Weta is now, not just in terms of practical effects but computer effects as well.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
|
|
