Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies

Journal red5's Journal: Am I the only one? 14

Journal by red5
Am I the only one who thinks LOTR: FOTR was crap?

Seriously what did it have other than a big franchise and an even bigger budget? Why did it win an academy award? It didn't innovate at all. The CG was a little better than the previous big CG movie and thats it.

Why didn't a movie that used cinematography and visual effects in new exciting ways (Amelie) win the award.

Is it just me? Am I crazy?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Am I the only one? More

Am I the only one?

Comments Filter:
  • I think several things propelled FOTR to its place, a great story (thanks JRRT), some good acting, good cinematography, and a boat-load of money. After that, things fell into place.
    • I think several things propelled FOTR to its place, a great story (thanks JRRT), some good acting, good cinematography, and a boat-load of money. After that, things fell into place.

      I guess I canunderstand why it won visual effects. It just sort of erks me that the best visual effects award goes to who ever built the badest Beowolf cluster this year. Why not award people for using visual in stunning new ways.

      I just wonder why it won best cinematography. seriously what was so great about it? It wasn't badly shot, but there wasn't anything great about it either.
      • Good cinematography is rarely recognized. Ex: One of my favorite TV shows [Due South [duesouth.com]] had some really great cinematography. In the show's last episode, the two cops enter an alley, being filmed from a fire escape about 20 feet up. The camera followed the two men walking down the alley, and the camera panned down, following them until the camera was filming them upside down at the opposite end of the alley from which they entered. The picture stayed that way for a while, then switched to a camera at ground level, but the shot was still upside down. The shot stayed upside down at ground level until one cop opened the door of an abandoned car, and a body fell out. When the body fell out, the camera rotated to right-side up. It's great to watch, it really emphasizes the surprise of the body falling out.
  • Fellowship r0x0rd

    The only criticism I heard was that "it tried to have something for everybody." I thought it used some action movie cliche's, but the detraction these had for the overall film was minimal. And they cut out Tom Bombadil [google.com]. That was a major plus.

    And Two Towers is going to kick @$$ [apple.com].
    • And they cut out Tom Bombadil. That was a major plus.

      I'll agree on that. I remember back when I was trying to read LOTR Tom Bombadil was about were I quit.
  • I didn't find anything particularly stunning, or innovative. It felt like I was watching a cut sequence to a video game sometimes. On top of that I thought the story sucked too. I hadn't read the book, as I loathe fantasy (which may lend to me thinking the story was dumb) but I'm glad I didn't. I could have used the time needed to slam my head in a cupboard and been a bit happier.

    Forget suspension of belief, you are trying to tell me that some guy who is all evil and powerful who gets killed manifests his power in a ring that must be destroyed in a volcano. Wait, but not just any volcano, the super evil volcano that requires a hard and treacherous journey that's plagued by a bunch of poorly done .. devil knights? And hobbits, what exactly is the fascination with overly stupid, and naive, creatures?

    Did anyone else get this from the ending: Suckers! Now you have to pay for the next movie to see the real end because this one doesn't have any end whatsoever!

    At least it had good CG, something to occupy my intrigue for a bit.
    • I hadn't read the book, as I loathe fantasy (which may lend to me thinking the story was dumb) but I'm glad I didn't.

      I tried reading the book once. Have you seen the size of that thing and after you're done theres two more just like it. Screw that. ;)
      • Have you seen the size of that thing and after you're done theres two more just like it. Screw that. ;)

        I blame Tolkien for single handedly destroying most of the rain forests.
  • but i was one of the people who thought FOTR was great. i am pre-ordering the platinum edition dvd set. i liked that the effects didn't always yell, "look at me, i am an amazing effect!" i thought the changes for the film adaption were acceptable to make the move less than 6 hours.

    i also loved amelie. but i have never seen a jean-pierre jeunet film that i didn't love. i even liked alien 4. but amelie loses because it is foreign, and hollywood is not ready to bestow awards on films not born and raised in southern california, or at least with close relatives from there.

    both FOTR and amelie benefit from something that is rare in the movies these days. they bothered to write an interesting story. of course, tolkien did a lot of the work to make FOTR, but i was glad they took the time to do it well instead of just quickly getting it over with. well written books don't always end up as well written screen plays. it astounds me how often writing a decent screenplay is just skipped when making a movie because it just takes too much effort.
    • thought the changes for the film adaption were acceptable to make the move less than 6 hours.

      That was one of the things that really bothered me. The movie was long and condensed. You can have one or the other but never both.
      • i took it as condensing just enough to make it fit what studios deem to be acceptable theatre time and no more. to condense the story to an hour and a half would have ruined it (or if you feel it was already ruined, it would have been even worse.) i think there are enjoyable versions of a story between wagner's ring and the cliff notes to wagner's ring.

        but, this is from someone who liked the movie, so i am starting from an entirely different view to begin with. i actually would have liked to see the barrow wights (tom bombadil and all) and seen frodo be the adult he is at the beginning of the book. but that would have made the movie another hour long (ok for me but not theatres) and required the release of a history of middle earth movie and the hobbit movie prior to release of FOTR (again ok for me, but america may not pay to watch a movie about the history of hobbits and other races, and they certainly won't all read the books to get background). it is skipping a few steps, but i enjoy the movie as a movie, not as a gospel interpretation of the book.

        but i'm going on unnecessarily. you felt differently. that's cool. i'll shut up about it now.
  • I enjoyed the movie even though I dislike the book. Now I'm not saying it isn't well written or anything (maybe a tad dry).

    But I dislike Tolkien's pseudo-religo-faith crap going on in there. The best character is, hands down, Boromeer[sp] hands down. Why? Because he is the most human: he is full of doubt, weak, yet filled with good intentions.

    What does Tolkein reward him for his humanity? Getting ousted as the "evil" fellowship member and killed trying to save everyone. Basically J.R.R. was saying "you either believe or you are a twat". He just reinforces the idea that heroes are somehow Not Like the Rest of Us.

    Oh and I hate how Frodo is such a vagina: everybody's fucking him. He basically sits back and gets beat on the entire series. What is this, some masochistic fantasy?

    So my expectations of the movie were different. I'm not going to say that it was good or even great by it was an Adequately Done Blockbuster. Was it the best movie of the year? Fuck no! Was it in the top ten? hahaha!

    But then the Academy thought that A Beautiful Mind was a quality flick which shows that they have no fucking clue.
  • Well, it wasn't entirely crap, but I didn't enjoy the movie as much as I was hoping.

    I have read the books, so I know the story, yet I found the movie to be a bit hard to follow at times. The story is very intricate, with lots of different sub-plots and hidden meanings - this did not translate very well to the screen at all IMHO. Maybe it was just me, but I had trouble following some parts of the movie - however, my father loved it, so maybe I was just trying to correlate what I remember of the book with the movie...

    The cinematography was great, but I agree that Amelie was a much more interestingly shot movie.

    • It was a lot of very pretty scenery, but as someone who didn't really enjoy the books (I nodded off before the first 100 or so pages of the first one), I enjoyed the (FOTR) movie. It felt like I was watching "The Postman" again, though... and I watched that in fast-forward, with subtitles, for most of it. "Look, another sweeping vista that takes 20 minutes to pan across" [>>]. (Get up, get something to drink, sit back down.)

      Amelie was definitely more interestingly shot, and was beautiful, vivid, and joyful.

      I felt drawn in to Amelie's world, and like a cold observer to the FOTR goings-on. There wasn't any awe, or grandeur to it for me, and I wasn't drawn into it until ~1 hr in. Of course, that's also due to the writing, but where Amelie's visuals were interesting, FOTR's were cliche.

Slashdot Top Deals

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Close