ROTK - Ultimate Best Film winner

[Morthoron]

“I would suggest that Peter Jackson’s films were better than Tolkien’s books,” (Salman) Rushdie said of the “Lord of the Rings” series. “Jackson directs better than Tolkien writes.”

And I care what Salman Rushdie thinks? I'll take Umberto Eco and raise you a Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Jackson directs better than Rushdie writes, and Tolkien is better than either. I'd post that on a Salman Rushdie forum...if I could find one that was active (one I found had no posts and the other's link was dead). Get back to me in 50 years on Rushdie -- this Tolkien forum will likely still be around, although we may not.

Originally Posted by Durelin

Another thing that came to mind is the difference between a "best picture" and "your favorite movie". They don't have to be the same thing. At least, they aren't for me. I like watching movies for entertainment, not necessarily to tackle philosophical questions or to be moved emotionally or to have my head messed with. I love adorable pixar movies. I love a movie when it entertains me.

I thought Wall-E was the best picture I saw this year. I was rather irritated it didn't get a best picture nomination, and also 'In Bruges', another great film that was ignored.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

And I care what Salman Rushdie thinks? I'll take Umberto Eco and raise you a Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Jackson directs better than Rushdie writes, and Tolkien is better than either. I'd post that on a Salman Rushdie forum...if I could find one that was active (one I found had no posts and the other's link was dead). Get back to me in 50 years on Rushdie -- this Tolkien forum will likely still be around, although we may not.

Heh. Rushdie is just a publicity seeker. I'd even venture to say that he wrote The Satanic Verses knowing full well that it would attract a furore (maybe he didn't expect an actual fatwa though) and boost his sales figures. Literary fiction is not always decent fiction (and Rushdie's most certainly isn't - having sampled two of his works and almost dying of tedium).

And I quote my current favourite columnist:

Originally Posted by Charlie Brooker in yesterday's Guardian

The other irony is that while people lie about having read highbrow novels in order to impress each other, a massive percentage of highbrow novels aren't worth reading anyway because the authors are too busy trying to impress the reader (who, we now know, probably hasn't bothered turning up). That's why so many contemporary novels seem to largely consist of a thinly veiled version of the author discussing politics and art and quantum theory over a carefully selected bottle of wine with the devastatingly beautiful mixed-race wife of an impotent international statesman and/or gangster (delete where applicable) before whisking her off to a swish hotel room to.....*snip*

Heh. He could almost be talking about Rushdie!

I thought Wall-E was the best picture I saw this year. I was rather irritated it didn't get a best picture nomination, and also 'In Bruges', another great film that was ignored.

I've just seen In Bruges, on Sky, and it was superb, and I'd never even heard about it until davem said he wanted to watch it (and he missed it in the end ). Just goes to show that hype counts in what people 'think' is actually decent. This year's best film is already out though - Watchmen. It's about 1,000 billion times better than RotK.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Heh. Rushdie is just a publicity seeker. I'd even venture to say that he wrote The Satanic Verses knowing full well that it would attract a furore (maybe he didn't expect an actual fatwa though) and boost his sales figures. Literary fiction is not always decent fiction (and Rushdie's most certainly isn't - having sampled two of his works and almost dying of tedium).

And I quote my current favourite columnist...Heh. He could almost be talking about Rushdie!:

I don't like Rushdie's eyebrows -- too sinister.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I've just seen In Bruges, on Sky, and it was superb, and I'd never even heard about it until davem said he wanted to watch it (and he missed it in the end ). Just goes to show that hype counts in what people 'think' is actually decent. This year's best film is already out though - Watchmen. It's about 1,000 billion times better than RotK.

The interplay between Gleeson and Farrell, and then Gleeson and Fiennes is excellent. Does anyone play an evil but nuanced character better than Ralph Fiennes? Check him out in 'The Duchess' -- the perfect portrait of a soulless man.

The Watchmen? Perhaps it's just me, but I've grown tired of costumed crime-fighter movies filmed almost entirely in CGI. I'll wait till it comes on cable.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

I don't like Rushdie's eyebrows -- too sinister.

The only people allowed to get away with brows like that are Gandalf and Dennis Healey.

The interplay between Gleeson and Farrell, and then Gleeson and Fiennes is excellent. Does anyone play an evil but nuanced character better than Ralph Fiennes? Check him out in 'The Duchess' -- the perfect portrait of a soulless man.

No, he's got those roles sewn up as far as I'm concerned, to the point where if he plays a good guy I won't believe in that character! He was playing these characters from the get-go too, see him as Amon Gerth (sp?) in Schindler's List, he's utterly vile!

The Watchmen? Perhaps it's just me, but I've grown tired of costumed crime-fighter movies filmed almost entirely in CGI. I'll wait till it comes on cable.

Ah but this is something else, it's like Alan Moore chews up and spits out the rule book about 'heroes' in Watchmen and the film doesn't flinch from his vision, warts and all. If anyone thought The Dark Knight was 'black' just go and see this feast of fun - it makes that look like a U cert fairytale. Plus, if you're sick of superhero films, this is a tasty treat! I don't know how they will ever make another film of the likes of Spider-Man after this.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Pssst, careful - off-topic skwerlz have been seen patrolling the area. Please do remember to keep your posts Tolkien-related. Thanks!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

Pssst, careful - off-topic skwerlz have been seen patrolling the area. Please do remember to keep your posts Tolkien-related. Thanks!

Bah! There is nothing more injurous to an off-topic discussion than a lore-zealous squirrel. They go right for the nuts! Ummm...or acorns.

[Kent2010]

Kind of similar to the accuracy of opinion polls, I would just like to say gross receipts are misleading as well. Now any film worth something can sell billions of dollars in tickets. If you adjust for inflation the list of best selling movies would change dramatically, and Gone with the Wind would be #1.

Originally Posted by Morthoron
I am not altogether sure that Jackson has left some great legacy for future directors.

I would say that LOTR did set the standard for fantasy films. There were some fantasy films that came out before LOTR, but none of them led to the burst in fantasy like LOTR did and I don't think any fantasy film has made its mark on the genre since. Jackson has set the benchmark for the fantasy genre in a way that any fantasy film since has been compared to LOTR. The Golden Compass was not a bad film, but it flopped because it just wasn't LOTR. LOTR right now is the benchmark at least for any fantasy film.

Whether it lasts its too early to tell. Hollywood is constantly trying to out do itself with a "bigger" and "better" so LOTR could fade with time. It may have started with the new comic fad. There is a whole host of comic-to-movies that have come out and will continue to come out. Why are you ripping on Iron Man? Downey Jr. was casting perfection.