Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: Off Topic:
Huh? (Star Wars sub-thread moved from Hobbit board)
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

brucewayne
Bree

Dec 30 2012, 3:03am

Post #26 of 37 (194 views)
Shortcut
Didn't Spielberg [In reply to] Can't Post

Didn't Spielberg direct the IJ movies? And why the hate on Temple of Doom? It's a good movie, it's just not as good as Raiders or Last Crusade.


brucewayne
Bree

Dec 30 2012, 3:09am

Post #27 of 37 (182 views)
Shortcut
Jake Lloyd [In reply to] Can't Post

My sister went to school with him. He got expelled, for *I think* vandalizing the bathroom? Something wierd, but yeah, kid was a nut.

I'm not really a fan of Star Wars at all, much prefer LOTR. But If I had to rank the films, it would go:
TPM, ROTS, NH, ESB, ROTJ, Attack of the Clones


brucewayne
Bree

Dec 30 2012, 3:09am

Post #28 of 37 (177 views)
Shortcut
Edit was made while I was typing [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry mods!


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 30 2012, 3:12am

Post #29 of 37 (173 views)
Shortcut
Jake Lloyd [In reply to] Can't Post

I don't know anything about him, but I thought he did a fine job as little Anakin, and that's enough for me.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Fredeghar Wayfarer
Lorien


Dec 30 2012, 10:03am

Post #30 of 37 (149 views)
Shortcut
Ray Park [In reply to] Can't Post

Ray Park played Toad in the first X-Men movie, Ardamire.

Back on topic, I enjoy the Star Wars prequels but I consider them inferior to the originals. Too much wooden acting, poor scripting, and Jar Jar Binks for me. They're an enjoyable expansion of that universe though and I certainly don't hate the prequels the way some do.


Ardamírë
Valinor


Dec 30 2012, 2:28pm

Post #31 of 37 (193 views)
Shortcut
Ray Park [In reply to] Can't Post

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me. I've never seen those films, so I was quite lost.

I think it's helpful to note that I saw Phantom Menace first, followed by the original trilogy. Attack of the Clones was not out yet, so I saw them in probably 2000 or 2001. So I didn't grow up with the originals and have some deep nostalgic attachment to them. They've always basically been one series to me rather than two different trilogies.

Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima! Hail Eärendil, brightest of stars!


Annael
Half-elven


Dec 30 2012, 4:54pm

Post #32 of 37 (148 views)
Shortcut
Oh, this takes me back [In reply to] Can't Post

to the Star Wars vs. LOTR debates that raged on TORn in the early days. Scratching my head trying to remember the name of the poster (think his nick started with a J?) who assured us all, repeatedly, for months, that the LOTR movies would be a complete flop while the Star Wars prequels would go down in history as the best movies ever. He hasn't been seen here since FOTR first opened . . .

The way we imagine our lives is the way we are going to go on living our lives.

- James Hillman, Healing Fiction

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Jan 1 2013, 2:35am

Post #33 of 37 (187 views)
Shortcut
Sorry, but i'm a Raiders of the Lost Ark purist. [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I just watched it again this afternoon (New Years Eve), and it remains one of the greatest films ever made. It's beautifully shot, all the characters are brilliantly drawn, the action scenes are precise and confident, the music is genius, the humor is genuine and never pandering, the pace is pitch perfect, and there's no fat to be found. And at the time it came out, it was as new and fresh as Star Wars was just a few years before. To me, it's practically perfect, and stands alone as a great work of art.

Recently a few film buff friends and i decided to come up with our top 250 films of all time (it started with 100, but we just couldn't stop!). Raiders made my top 5, the others didn't even make the list.

The Last Crusade is o.k. When i saw it in the theater when it came out, i remember being disappointed, and it hasn't really improved in my estimation since. Some of the effects actually look worse than Raiders for some reason, the intro with River Pheonix is just kind of strange, and apart from Indy (young and old) and his dad, none of the characters are memorable at all (well, Julian Glover is always good). I don't hate it or anything, but i have almost zero enthusiasm for it.

The other two i can.. not.. stand.

Well, i've never watched the last one past the ridiculous refrigerator scene-- though i've seen enough here and there to know that the cg effects look terrible and Shiah LaBoof still sucks.

The second one is maybe one of the worst things i've ever seen (although i'll admit that this is in comparison to my beloved Raiders). A terrible, blatant attempt to turn Raiders into a franchise. I absolutely hate the two new main characters (the kid's annoying as f***, the chick's even worse), and most of the action is way over the top and not very interesting. I do think that the cinematography is beautiful, John Williams never lets you down, and the mine cart chase is brilliantly done. Everything else... words fail me. And i haven't even mentioned the fact that it starts with a MUSICAL NUMBER!!!

It kind of angers me that Raiders is mostly known as the first in this series rather than the truly great film that it is on it's own. The other films, no matter how good some think they are, don't even come close to it's greatness and kind of drag it down. Whenever i see online discussions of the greatest films of all time, genre stuff like Aliens, Jaws, Blade Runner, Star Wars or Close Encounters get mentioned all the time. Hardly ever do i see Raiders of the Lost Ark mentioned like this, and i think it's because it's lumped in with the more pedestrian and obviously inferior later installments. And this makes me sad.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Jan 1 2013, 2:44am

Post #34 of 37 (114 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, Spielberg directed them [In reply to] Can't Post

and Lucas wrote the stories (but not the scripts) and executive produced. So all the terrible ideas were George Lucas, and i obviously blame him and his turn to the dark side.


(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Jan 1 2013, 2:47am)


brucewayne
Bree

Jan 1 2013, 6:19pm

Post #35 of 37 (110 views)
Shortcut
I highly disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

Raiders is inferior to the Last Crusade, in my opinion. Temple of Doom, while flawed, is still pretty dang good. The thing that makes it worse than Crusade and Raiders is that it doesn't have an interesting artifact and quest. It wasn't a world-spanning adventure like the others. It's still amazing, probably 15th of my all time favorite movies. I found the mythology and quest for the Grail to be better than that of Raiders. I recognize that Raiders came first, and nostalgia accounts for a lot of it's love, but I think that Last Crusade is the best. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is good, but no masterpiece. It's light hearted fun. Not terrible by any means.


Sunflower
Valinor

Jan 2 2013, 1:39am

Post #36 of 37 (139 views)
Shortcut
WHAT!?!?!?! [In reply to] Can't Post

You acually think, (just to give a very small example) that ***RATS IN A SEWER*** were more terrifying than the snakes in the Ark chamber?!?!?! Or the python issuing forth from the mummy's mouth was less memorable of an image than Indy Sr chasing up a FLOCK OF BIRDS??!? It was almost a parody of Raiders, and entitely laughable on both counts. And I have yet to see--outside of the shark gulping down poor old Quint--a more downright good old fashioned plain old scary image than Toht's face melting. In fact, there's a whole entire documentary out there on how they did that one 5-second image alone. For people of a certain age, that image is one of their primal nightmares, as seminal as the Shower scene in Psycho.

(I agree with everything Sauget said, and just to add details of my own.)

It's hard to fathom the days before the advent of CGI. But I still remember sitting in the theater and the convulsive (that's the only way to describe it) reaction from the audience when the camera panned down and showed the hundreds of snakes writhing on the floor. Of course, we later knew many of them were fake but enough of them were real, oh, too many of them. People actually shrieked. I mean, screamed out loud. How often do you see that in a theater nowadays, when people just go, "Oh, I'm sure that's all CGI."

And the quotes--these were like passwords for a generation:
"Asps. Very dangerous." (Pause) "You go first." (Yes, for people a certain age, John Rhys Davies will always be Sallah before he was Gimli.)
"Bad dates."
"The British Tar is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird...." (tell me nobody didn't do research on that song, to see if it was a real song and what were the rest of the lyricsTongue)
"It's a radio for speaking to God!"
"That's just my pet snake Reggie..ah come on, show a little backbone!"
"It's not the years, it's the mileage."
"I was a child! I was in love! It was wrong and you knew it!" (Here I must interrupt and vent my anger at Lucas/Spielberg at the Indy>Marion subplot in Indy 4. That brief conversation in Raiders had our imaginations going for decades. Turns out she WAS "a child", barely past puberty, and he much older...what exactly went on there? Pretty twisted if you ask me. Who seduced whom...a whole lifetime summed up in 4 or 5 lines. And all we got 25 yrs later was a crappy ruelful rehash that didn't really tell us anything, conducted during a high-speed chase with Shia the Beef? Hugely disppointed.)

Okay, I'm falling into the "nostalgia trap" here, as you say. But I saw all three at the time they came out, and while I have to say that Last Crusade was good, I still don't find the Grail to be as compelling a Quest as the Ark of the Covenant. (Not until I grew older did I realize I'd fallen into the very intellectual trap that the film-makers knowingly put the audience in: if Indy and Marion "didn't look", and those who did felt the wrath of God for beholding something forbidden, we, the audience, all looked; are we, too , meant to shut our eyes?)

And the questions we asked, eg Raiders's ending. What did the warehouse mean? Did the TLC have you asking questions like that?

Without the Sean Connery character the whole thing would have fallen apart. He's great fun, but the rest of it there was too much flab, and the attempts to be scary/compelling it just told me, "Okay, the film-makers are trying too hard to match the wit and fun of Raiders. it's like the difference between Retun of the Jedi and Star Wars...they are trying to "up the ante" and sometimes it works, sometimes it really does not."
The one thing that really shined was the music...it was as good as Raiders. JW really did a great job at making Indy seem "giddy as a schoolboy" in some scenes...the scene where he uncovered the Knight's tomb was really moving. \
Oh, and the 3rd film yeilded, IMO< only one memorable quote: "She talks in her sleep."


(This post was edited by Sunflower on Jan 2 2013, 1:44am)


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Jan 2 2013, 6:06pm

Post #37 of 37 (139 views)
Shortcut
Another quote in LAST CRUSADE has been the subject of some interest. [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
Oh, and the 3rd film yielded, IMO, only one memorable quote: "She talks in her sleep."


Jeff Sypeck, a specialist in Charlemagne, unsuccessfully tried to track down the source of this one:

"Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky".

As for the merits of Raiders of the Lost Ark vs. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, some of the more serious critics working in 1981 panned the former for being too frenetic. The 1984 sequel was found even more flawed in this regard, but the relationship between Indy and his father in the third film was compelling enough to win some of these critics over. I remember specifically that David Shipman in his 1992 book, Cinema: The First Hundred Years, says that Spielberg "finally got it right" with Last Crusade.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.