Are the LOTR movies "film classics?" - Page 2

***Sister Golden Hair*** · 09-25-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The BB-Cirdan bet on King Kong's gross. Here are the stakes:

If Cirdan wins, BB will change his title to: "JRR Tolkien Purist"

If BB wins, Cirdan will change his title to: "Gushing Peter Jackson Groupie"

Oh my. I can't wait. When the time comes, may I do the honors?

Cirdan · 09-25-2003, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
The BB-Cirdan bet on King Kong's gross. Here are the stakes:

If Cirdan wins, BB will change his title to: "JRR Tolkien Purist"

If BB wins, Cirdan will change his title to: "Gushing Peter Jackson Groupie"

No "Gushing", unless you like "Slavering Tolkien Purist"

...and that's closest to gross so you'll need to exceed $175M.

Terminator 3 only managed $150M. King Kong III... well, hasta la vista, bb.

***Earniel*** · 09-25-2003, 02:45 PM

LOL!

But just when is this new version of King Kong coming out?

Cirdan · 09-25-2003, 03:07 PM

December 2005.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...... wake me when the big ape is dead.

Black Breathalizer · 09-25-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cirdan
Terminator 3 only managed $150M. King Kong III...

I promise this is my last post on this silly topic for now but I couldn't resist one more.

When Cirdan reports that a Cameron-less Terminator 3 ONLY managed $150M at the boxoffice, it seems to me that he unintentionally strengthened my case for Peter Jackson's King Kong making at least $175M.

Sheeana · 09-25-2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
When Cirdan reports that a Cameron-less Terminator 3 ONLY managed $150M at the boxoffice, it seems to me that he unintentionally strengthened my case for Peter Jackson's King Kong making at least $175M.

Yeah, but it still had Arnie in it, so we were all suckered into watching it anyway.

What are the terms on this little bet? How long do you have to wear the title for?

Cirdan · 09-25-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheeana
Yeah, but it still had Arnie in it, so we were all suckered into watching it anyway.

The first one was a true classic especially because Arnie didn't talk much. Why do these future robots keep making ones that are ESL? Can't the robot just kill while speaking a native language?

The terms should be permanent. It would be worth the chance just to hang him by his epithets. I think I must have "Tolkien Purist of the Ivory Tower" for it's new title, however. I should really be "Unwashed Jacksonian of the Masses", though I did just shower and I don't attend mass.

Elf Girl · 09-26-2003, 03:49 PM

I don't know how I will wait for King Kong to come out... I will do my part for Cirdan by not going to see it!

Cirdan · 09-27-2003, 10:16 AM

Then you'll be doing us both a favor.

You can still rent it, though.

***IronParrot*** · 09-28-2003, 02:20 AM

When I think of film "classics", I think of movies that changed not only film history, but film-making on the whole. Undeniably, The Lord of the Rings is of that number. Some of the images in the films have already established themselves into moviemaking canon.

One of the things cementing this status, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that nobody will remake it. Not as a feature film, anyway. It's like how nobody dares lay a finger on Gone With The Wind. The reason for this is that no producer with half a brain would finance a film to go head-to-head with the legacy of this one. (Of course, most film producers nowadays don't have half a brain, so who knows?) My point is, Peter Jackson may have changed things from the book, but he did too many things definitively.

Gwaimir Windgem · 10-07-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Entlover
Wait.
You're telling me that PJ, after coming out with the trilogy of LotR, is now working on King Kong?
This is a joke, right? That would be like Lincoln doing a comic book after the Gettysburg Address. Or something.

Sad, isn't it?

***IronParrot*** · 10-07-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Wait.
You're telling me that PJ, after coming out with the trilogy of LotR, is now working on King Kong?
This is a joke, right? That would be like Lincoln doing a comic book after the Gettysburg Address. Or something.

Wow. Obviously, some people here have never watched King Kong.

Sheeana · 10-07-2003, 10:14 PM

Granted, the original King Kong was ground-breaking in terms of cinematography, but not much happens in it. I don't see how PJ is going to add anything new to this already well-marketed franchise.

Millane · 10-08-2003, 06:42 AM

honestly i really dont know what to expect with King Kong... i really like Peter Jackson and you must watch either Braindead or Bad Taste if you want to really judge him, i think these movies and LotR attract very different audiences and its easy to look at lord and dismiss his talent as being the enormous budget he had to work with and fail to see his talents and imagination that are the real reason that LotR is a masterpiece, Braindead and Bad Taste can easily display PJ 's talents because the quality of them cant be pinned down to a huge budget because there wasnt one, he couldnt employ hundreds of specialists to create an epic and so he improvised and pulled off great films that were IMO better because of there low budgets. At least PJ is really into this remake and i know he will pour his all into it and create a spectacular movie i agree with BB this will earn big money now that PJ has stamped down his authority with LotR...
As far as LotR being a classic i think it was almost predestined to become a classic because of its large budget, and more importantly a live action movie of a classic book... the same principle applies to Watership Down, classic book, classic animated film and if it became live action then i also would lay a fair bit of money on it being regarded as a classic... now we wait for the live action Watership Down

***IronParrot*** · 10-08-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

As far as LotR being a classic i think it was almost predestined to become a classic because of its large budget, and more importantly a live action movie of a classic book...

I would dispute this. A big-budget film based on an established story will not be a classic if it isn't any good. This kind of mentality is why the old-style grand historical epic collapsed as a film genre after the 1960s.

Even in recent years there have been a lot of grand projects based on this mindset that were both financial and critical bombs, despite being touted as "guaranteed hits" prior to Oscar season. It's usually pretty hit-and-miss.

For example, you can bet your bottom dollar that twenty years from now, nobody's going to look back and reflect on how Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor was a "classic". The ambition was there, and so was the money - but something still has to be said for quality.

In fact, I find it doubtful that even the Harry Potter films will be considered "classics" in the long run. On many levels, the two films thus far just haven't demonstrated enough cinematic merit or "revolutionary" status.

The LOTR films are going to be remembered as classics not because of what they wanted to be, but because of what they are: classics.

Shadowfax · 10-08-2003, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronParrot
The LOTR films are going to be remembered as classics not because of what they wanted to be, but because of what they are: classics.

Well put; I agree!

Black Breathalizer · 10-08-2003, 07:07 PM

One of the reasons why PJ's Lord of the Rings films stand out from the crowd is because we've been in a cinematic wasteland for many years when it comes to producing films that could be considered "timeless classics." While there have been a few decent, high quality films over the past few decades, my definition of a timeless classic is one that was almost universally hailed as a 'must see' movie. Being the 'greatest movie ever made' isn't as important as the fact that it successfully captured people's interest and imagination - and people still remain fond of it even after many years.

In fact, it is incredibly hard for me to identify many films during the past thirty years that could reasonably be called a timeless classic. I guess my list would include Titanic, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and ET.

The three Lord of the Rings films will soon be moving to the top of this list.

***IronParrot*** · 10-09-2003, 03:07 AM

Quote:

In fact, it is incredibly hard for me to identify many films during the past thirty years that could reasonably be called a timeless classic. I guess my list would include Titanic, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and ET.

If you're talking about the very top echelons of said "list", then maybe the selection is that limited.

But if you're looking for a) universal or near-universal appeal, b) the box office returns to prove it at the audience level, and c) the critical praise to prove it at the professional level - you can probably extend that list a bit. I can name several movies in the past few years that, similar to LOTR, hit near-100% scores on Rotten Tomatoes and sold piles and piles of tickets - and had the "must-see" factor plus the lasting appeal to hold them up.

Still, it's true that LOTR is already two-thirds of the way to being up there in the cream of the crop. Not since Star Wars has a film so defined an entire cinematic generation.

Gamigar · 10-15-2003, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Several well-known and respected film critics have been hailing Peter Jackson LOTR films as "modern-day movie classics."

In your opinion, what makes a movie "a film classic" and do Peter Jackson's LOTR movies fit your definition?

yes, they are.

paulbaggins · 10-17-2003, 06:48 PM

If they are not now they will be in time to come. Remember many people thought the books were only "boys books " But I would hope no one would argue that they are not classics now.

So give them time and the movies will be. Especially iof ROTK is as good as the first 2 installments

09-25-2003, 02:45 PM	#23
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	LOL! But just when is this new version of King Kong coming out? __________________ We are not things.

09-25-2003, 03:07 PM	#24
Cirdan Elf Lord of the Grey Havens Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somewhere else Posts: 2,381	December 2005. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...... wake me when the big ape is dead. __________________ There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary

09-26-2003, 03:49 PM	#28
Elf Girl Lurker Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Lothlórien Posts: 3,419	I don't know how I will wait for King Kong to come out... I will do my part for Cirdan by not going to see it! __________________ There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium...

09-27-2003, 10:16 AM	#29
Cirdan Elf Lord of the Grey Havens Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somewhere else Posts: 2,381	Then you'll be doing us both a favor. You can still rent it, though. __________________ There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary

09-28-2003, 02:20 AM	#30
*IronParrot* Fowl Administrator Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: Calgary or Edmonton, Canada Posts: 53,420	When I think of film "classics", I think of movies that changed not only film history, but film-making on the whole. Undeniably, The Lord of the Rings is of that number. Some of the images in the films have already established themselves into moviemaking canon. One of the things cementing this status, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that nobody will remake it. Not as a feature film, anyway. It's like how nobody dares lay a finger on Gone With The Wind. The reason for this is that no producer with half a brain would finance a film to go head-to-head with the legacy of this one. (Of course, most film producers nowadays don't have half a brain, so who knows?) My point is, Peter Jackson may have changed things from the book, but he did too many things definitively. __________________ All of IronParrot's posts are guaranteed to be 100% intelligent and/or sarcastic, comprising no genetically modified content and tested on no cute furry little animals unless the SPCA is looking elsewhere. If you observe a failure to uphold this warranty, please contact a forum administrator immediately to receive a full refund on your Entmoot registration. Blog: Nick's Café Canadien

10-07-2003, 10:14 PM	#33
Sheeana Lord of the Pants Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,382	Granted, the original King Kong was ground-breaking in terms of cinematography, but not much happens in it. I don't see how PJ is going to add anything new to this already well-marketed franchise.

10-08-2003, 06:42 AM	#34
Millane The Dude Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: at the altar of my ego Posts: 1,685	honestly i really dont know what to expect with King Kong... i really like Peter Jackson and you must watch either Braindead or Bad Taste if you want to really judge him, i think these movies and LotR attract very different audiences and its easy to look at lord and dismiss his talent as being the enormous budget he had to work with and fail to see his talents and imagination that are the real reason that LotR is a masterpiece, Braindead and Bad Taste can easily display PJ 's talents because the quality of them cant be pinned down to a huge budget because there wasnt one, he couldnt employ hundreds of specialists to create an epic and so he improvised and pulled off great films that were IMO better because of there low budgets. At least PJ is really into this remake and i know he will pour his all into it and create a spectacular movie i agree with BB this will earn big money now that PJ has stamped down his authority with LotR... As far as LotR being a classic i think it was almost predestined to become a classic because of its large budget, and more importantly a live action movie of a classic book... the same principle applies to Watership Down, classic book, classic animated film and if it became live action then i also would lay a fair bit of money on it being regarded as a classic... now we wait for the live action Watership Down __________________ Ill heal your wounds, ill set you free, Last edited by Millane : 10-08-2003 at 06:44 AM.

10-08-2003, 07:07 PM	#37
Black Breathalizer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 828	One of the reasons why PJ's Lord of the Rings films stand out from the crowd is because we've been in a cinematic wasteland for many years when it comes to producing films that could be considered "timeless classics." While there have been a few decent, high quality films over the past few decades, my definition of a timeless classic is one that was almost universally hailed as a 'must see' movie. Being the 'greatest movie ever made' isn't as important as the fact that it successfully captured people's interest and imagination - and people still remain fond of it even after many years. In fact, it is incredibly hard for me to identify many films during the past thirty years that could reasonably be called a timeless classic. I guess my list would include Titanic, The Godfather, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and ET. The three Lord of the Rings films will soon be moving to the top of this list.

10-17-2003, 06:48 PM	#40
paulbaggins Sapling Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Victoria BC Canada Posts: 14	are these movies classics ? If they are not now they will be in time to come. Remember many people thought the books were only "boys books " But I would hope no one would argue that they are not classics now. So give them time and the movies will be. Especially iof ROTK is as good as the first 2 installments __________________ [B]The road goes ever on and on down from the house where it began

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HP Vs. LoTR	Pytt	Harry Potter	53	01-17-2011 01:33 AM
Blatant LoTR Copy-Cats	ItalianLegolas	Middle Earth	81	08-13-2010 12:17 AM
LOTR Discussion: Appendix A, parts 2 and 3	Forkbeard	LOTR Discussion Project	12	12-28-2007 07:10 AM
Best Movies of 2005...so far	HOBBIT	Entertainment Forum	36	12-27-2005 04:40 PM
Things you were happy NOT to see on the ROTK Trailer	Black Breathalizer	Lord of the Rings Movies	35	10-12-2003 02:34 PM