Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

This is the place to talk about films from around the world.

Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby s4012151 » Fri May 03, 2002 9:28 am

It was a new zealand film with very few american actors! It had a few aussies as well.
so what's the go?
the rating is high enough!
s4012151
 


Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby jason-3 » Sat May 04, 2002 3:04 am

Patience... a film must have at least 25 votes to appear in the top 100. Cheers.
jason-3
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby gratefultiger » Sun May 12, 2002 10:41 pm

PROBABLY BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST OVER HYPED AND OVERRATED FILM SINCE TITANIC BESIDES I CAN ONLY STAND SO MUCH BLUE.
CHEERS FROM DOWNUNDER PS GIVE ME 3 HOURS OF TAKOVSKY ANY TIME
gratefultiger
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby christine » Wed May 22, 2002 5:30 pm

I don't think that's being fair on LOTR comparing it with Titanic. Titanic was one big overblown sugary tale, whereas LOTR has pretty much stuck to the Tolkein story and has had much praise for it from Tolkein fans. Just because it is a box office success doesn't make it a bad film. I have friends who are Tolkein fans and who love the film (don't you Kat??)
christine
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby Katina » Wed May 22, 2002 7:13 pm

Comparing Titanic to LotR is completely pointless. Cameron took real life characters and made sweeping assumptions about their reactions and their personalities, eg; Murdoch and Lightowler. to do something like that is a big mistake for any director, particularly when the source material for those assumptions is generally unreliable and coloured by events, trials and inquiries.

LotR on the other hand, is a reasonably faithful, if somewhat pruned adaptation of one of the most popular fictional works of all time. Of course it's overblown! It's a fantasy epic, you can't do it on a west end theatre stage or give to a small indie director....oh wait, Peter Jackson was a small indie director. Says a lot for New Line that they gave a project to a director as unexperienced in blockbusters as Jackson.

Yes I am a Tolkien fan, yes I have read most of the lost Laundry Lists and personally, roll on The Two Towers! After all that I'm not sure I'd classify it as a foreign film though. :o)
Katina
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby gratefultiger » Sun May 26, 2002 10:40 pm

the comparison is in the hype i love lord of the rings,& the hobbit,it's just that i found the film very disappointing,all that blue ,to me it lacked soul,but now it is in the top100 touche,"no one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the public."
verdict overrated,i prefer jacko's off the wall"bad taste"

cheers from oz
gratefultiger
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby Hectate » Sat Jun 01, 2002 5:59 am

Regardless of any trivial comparison of films to films--it comes to this: it was a ballyhoo.

Not to mention the movie's reliance on special effects, repetitive bird shot (derived from BEER commercials) when the heroes travel (and they travel alot), and Peter Jackson's overexploited use of ACTION SECQUENCES that it took away the HOBBITS SOUL which is, in a way, an act of larceny to the book.
Hectate
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby Bacchus33 » Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:04 pm

I prefer Harry Potter actually. It reminds me of television programmes I used to watch as a child.
Bacchus33
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby wpqx » Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:41 am

Although everyone got off the subject debating whether LOTR was comparible to Titanic, I have chosen to answer the first question. The reason why that film isn't on the top hundred is probably because it is still in English. Regardless of what country produced it, I still view a film in English as American, or non foreign. If we did make these distinctions then British films like Lawrence of Arabia and A Clockwork Orange could make the list, going against what is a foreign film anyway. Aside from that LOTR was just pretty good. For my money Dead Alive and Heavenly Creatures, and to a lesser extent Meet the Feebles are the best Peter Jackson films.
wpqx
 

Re: Why isn't Lord of the Rings in the Top 100?

Postby bigpoppa_2059 » Tue Jan 07, 2003 5:35 am

"Two Towers" actually wasn't as close to the book as the first film. This one shifted perspective of the hobbits fighting forces greater than them (Tolkien's purpose) and made it into a plot-driven action film with Aragorn as the hunky hero. Anyways, LOTR should be in the Top 100 soon, I assume since it gets tons of votes. The "Star Wars" of our generation I feel.
bigpoppa_2059
 


Return to Film Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron