Do you think LotR holds up?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
Oh theres certainly some pseudoscientific gobbledygook in it but generally, it is still top notch production, copied greatly to this day, and not remotely dated at all. In fact, Taken as a whole,its still the single most realistic all-encompassing vision of the future yet seen. Most other futuristic movies take bits and pieces of future speculation to fashion a story, Matrix doesnt skimp.
Well, Gandalf was wearing Narya....
To be fair, most of the people I know got what sounded like a non-derisive laugh out of the dwarf tossing.
I did think it was funny. What I objected to was limiting almost the entire portrayal of the dwarves to either height jokes or their arguments with the elves -- which they always lost. Elrond was cynical about whether humans had any potential left, yet he's okay with the Fellowship including (as portrayed) a buffoon from a race of buffoons?
There's room for height jokes as long as you also develop the dwarves as serious characters.
Perhaps
I'm not sure how "realistic" it is, BUT... it was ground-breaking in its special effects which were eventually emulated and parodied. And I thought the story was rather original if not invigorating with what it put your brain through.
When it comes to LOTR, I saw a similar level of effort in the special effects and the quality of everything about the film (taking all three as a whole). This is in part due to having seen the travelling exhibit and so many costumes, props, etc up close. Jackson accomplished what so very few people thought was even possible: bring the whole Lord of the Rings story to the big screen in a big and entertaining way that won't soon be matched by any film let alone a remake, considering the challenges presented and the quality of the resulting product.
Matrix was always surprisingly intelligent for a wire-work chop-socky movie about Neuromancer inspired hacker badasses. That was never the same thing as its being actually intelligent; even with the original, you really had to squint to buy the "machines farming humans as an energy source" premise. And even then, the sequels dropped off pretty sharply in quality from the original.
Some of the CGI is starting to look pretty aged, particularly in the first movie, but I think that has more to do with the evolution of CG effects than any fault of the films'. Otherwise I think the trilogy still holds up incredibly well, and will continue to do so for decades. I don't see anyone else trying another film adaptation of the trilogy for at least another twenty years.
Well the first film implies we're only used to provide the electrical energy to run their actual plasma fusion reactors they need to live. That the Power Plant was a cruel, ironic punishment for humanity.
The sequels dropped this immediately.
The premise is alright, but the emo leather fetish execution is cringe inducing. The stylized fight choreography and wire work is extremely dated as well. Matrix is my personal prime example of a hot air bubble. I gushed over it back then, but today it's laughable to me.
I still love the original Matrix because I love kung fu movies. (The shades-and-trenches Goth fashion pretension brings back memories too; I was never one of those kids but knew plenty of them, I still go to a monthly industrial night to get my dance fix.
) It's nonsense, but it's fun, and as a "Chosen One's story of self-discovery" thing it pretty much does what it needs to. I just don't think of it as anything more than well-executed junk culture on the level of The Legend of Drunken Master.The sequels are much more painful. I defended The Matrix Reloaded at the time, but it's all but unwatchable for me today, and Revolutions even more so.
Although the Watcher of Moria shot has, measurably aged badly, I love it. It is so awesome to see a unique creature inhabit a fantasy world, and just get added to the texture. Plus I love how it opens it's mouth.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNZdOY94ko[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNZdOY94ko[/yt]
You keep Tom Bombadil, you've got yourself a musical. On the other hand, if you lose Tom Bombadil, you lose the Barrow-wights, and if you lose the Barrow-wights, you lose the sword of Westernesse that Merry used to stab the Witch-king. But you replace it with the magic dagger given to Merry by Galadriel and it's all good, I guess.
I'd almost forgotten that, but it used to bug me too. I always wondered why Jackson didn't omit Bombadil but still insert a Barrow-downs sequence right before Bree. It seems like something he'd go for. Bombadil doesn't necessarily have to defeat the Barrow-wight; perhaps the creature is frightened off by a mysterious "strider" who then disappears. (At least until they get to Bree.) In the meantime they pick up the weapons from the barrow.
I suppose even if they had done that, it would be a little hard to explain onscreen what the connection was between the Witch-King and the sword of Westernesse. I guess if they just revert to "elf weapon = magic", then, as you say, it's all good.
Anyone know why Aragorn happened to be carrying around four hobbit-sized swords? It's not like Gandalf told him who to expect.
I wasn't happy with the way they handled all the swords.
Meh, the detail of the swords is reasonably cool if you can include it but far from necessary. The Witch-King is effectively killed by a Macbeth-style prophetic loophole that appears from nowhere anyway ("magic" in Tolkien's universe basically operated by dramatic convenience).
Anduril is the worst offender, because by omitting it until the second half of the third film, they changed Aragorn's whole character. In the books, he takes Anduril when they leave Rivendell, and he already accepted being King. And in many scenes the sword spread fear among the orcs and hope among humans.
