posted
It's almost midnight in Cleveland and I can't wait up any longer. Return of the King already has nine Oscars, and the big nominations lie ahead . . .
Nope, now it's ten. Jackson just got Best Director.
Ten or twenty years ago, I can't imagine a fantasy cleaning up like this. It's amazing. Something in our society must be changing.
Or is this just an anomaly? Could it be a one time thing, based on some special magic that only Tolkien could create?
posted
I fear that the many oscars for the LotR trilogy is not necessarily a result of Tolkien's skills as a writer. In the past, oh, half decade or so I feel that the Oscars have gone down the drain in terms of making decisions regarding the 'best' performances of the year in films.
I do think that this affair of one film collecting all the ocars is not an anomaly. We have seen a deliberate shift in recent years towards a return to epic films, LotR being the lastest of many. These longer, more sweeping films (LotR, Titanic, Saving Private Ryan, Last Samurai) are attempting to create a real bond with the viewer. I feel that these films get a great boost from a small number of well known critics (IE Ebert et.al.), use famous and well known names in the current pop culture (IE Leo DiCaprio in Titanic) all in an attempt to garner popular support with the ordinary film goer. These film goers are, in general, sheep. Most people, and I will include myself in this group in regards to many films (IE Open Range) do not feel strongly enough about a movie to form a personal opionion. If the average American goes to a movie and doesn't quite understand the story or plot, or discover some deeper meaning (if only to themselves) hidden among the generally increasing amounts of gratuitous violence and swearing (I have no problem with a violent/swearing movie, provided that there is a reason for it and not simply for the sake of doing it), then that person is quite likely to simply go along with what they think everyone thinks, that the movie is a great, monumental achievement. I believe that this popular expectation among the general public influences the people who vote for the Oscars. People want to see the most popular films win, so the Oscar voters are fairly likely to let the masses decide their vote as long as the film has the basic requirements of a "Best Picture".
Now, don't get me wrong, I really liked Jackson's trilogy. It was well made, fairly well acted, excellent work in the special effects lab, etc, etc. I do believe that the results of tonights Oscars are not based on the value of the movie "The Return of the King", but on the value of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. I thought that "The Return of the King" was a good movie, but not good enough for all the Oscars it has received.
As to whether or not another fantasy could do this? Well, in my eyes any well made film can do it, fantasy or not. The trick is that most of what would be considered 'fantasy' stories that result in movies without a meaningful story, primarily focuesed on cutting up the bad guy and waging ever increasingly massive, computer generated battles. So I think its all just a matter of the right script, the right director, and the right story. I would imagine that if the story for the Arnold Schwartzanegger engine "Conan the Barbarian" were done today, it might have a chance. It's a well loved character and story, it has its violence and gore, and in the hands of a talented scripter the story could easily be fleshed out and real power added to the life of Conan.
Anyways, back to the original question, is it an anomaly that one film takes all the Oscars? probably not. Is this set of Oscars a reuslt of TOlkiens abilities? Sure, he wrote one of the most beloved stories in history, people who dislike fantasy novels in general enjoy his books, and most importantly, people have been waiting for a good film version of his books for years.
posted
Maybe it has to do with the fact that most movies are created without the depth most books have. To base a movie on a book will give the movie more depth, better characters.
If directors would look to more good books for their movies then we might all be a bit happier.
posted
I hope it isn't an anomoly. I am glad that Fantasy is finally making its mark at the box office, it's about time.
Tolkein is going to be a hard act to follow, but there are plenty of good stories out there, that if done correctly, could be just as good. I am not sure if any Fantasy story would have the draw that LOTR had, just because of how long the story has been out in the public.
Possibly the Shannara series or another story that has been around long enough to grow outside the boundaries of the standard Fantasy groupies.
I knew when I saw the first Jurrasic Park movie that Dragons weren't far behind, and I was excited to see if hollywood would jump on the technology. They did, but not wholeheartedly... until LOTR.
I for one, am ready for more. I hope I don't have to wait 20 years for another fantasy epic to build enough fan base to become a movie. In the end it is all about the $$$$$.
The Oscars really don't hold any water with me, but I was glad to see this years results. Maybe this will just add fuel to the fire and more studios will venture into the Fantasy world. I-hope-I-hope-I-hope-I-hope!!!!!
posted
Lord of the Rings has something that Conan the Barbarian didn't have.
Some might call it heart, or resonance, or human spirit.
Me, I just know that it was uplifting in a way that Conan couldn't have achieved, wasn't meant to achieve. I mean, that film already has real power to move you, but the insights are all very dark. It is a paean to the barbarian's Nietzshean god of blood, pain, and the drive for unlimited power over other men.
I really like that movie, and it was a work of art already.
But it doesn't make you feel good, not in a good way. It kinda does make you feel good in an evil way.
Most people that went to see Lord of the Rings felt that it affirmed the values they hold dear, if unspoken, somewhere in their hearts. Despite the general silliness of that scene at the end of Two Towers where Sam delivers his speech about the good stories, he sums up the message of Lord of the Rings, that there is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for. That's a belief to which we will cling, to which we must cling.
Does the utter devotion to and love of Tolkein's story that shows through the craftsmanship lavished on every scene of the movie have something to do with our willingness to believe that somewhere in the land of our heart, this story really happened? I'm sure it does. This enthusiasm had the emotional power in the lives of the actors to persuade them to give 100% full time to getting it right, it had the power to collect thousands of expert craftsmen and set them to work creating th e physical artifacts of the cultures in the movie.
Yes, the movie was well made, because it was made by people who felt a deep love for the message of the story.
No, I don't care how many Oscars it receives. I don't know that it should receive any. As far as I'm aware, Oscars are theoretically supposed to be awarded for 'artyness', a quality in which the Lord of the Rings movies are totally lacking.
Sure, the academy sometimes makes sure to hand them out to at least some shows that are wildly successful...if they didn't, then nobody would watch the Oscars anymore, and then what would be the point of their whiney little "aren't we special and arty" show?
quote:Most people, and I will include myself in this group in regards to many films (IE Open Range) do not feel strongly enough about a movie to form a personal opinion. If the average American goes to a movie and doesn't quite understand the story or plot, or discover some deeper meaning (if only to themselves) hidden among the generally increasing amounts of gratuitous violence and swearing (I have no problem with a violent/swearing movie, provided that there is a reason for it and not simply for the sake of doing it), then that person is quite likely to simply go along with what they think everyone thinks, Most people, and I will include myself in this group in regards to many films (IE Open Range) do not feel strongly enough about a movie to form a personal opinion. If the average American goes to a movie and doesn't quite understand the story or plot, or discover some deeper meaning (if only to themselves) hidden among the generally increasing amounts of gratuitous violence and swearing (I have no problem with a violent/swearing movie, provided that there is a reason for it and not simply for the sake of doing it), then that person is quite likely to simply go along with what they think everyone thinks...
This statement initially pissed me off. I clicked the reply button, preparing to denounce this assertion as to the sheepishness of Americans as idiotic and more than a little elitist. Including yourself among the sheep didn't take the edge off my outrage.
But, then I realized that your statement explains so much about American politics that you might well be on to something.
posted
I hope this will open the door for *good* fantasy. We do now have the special effects technology required to make fantasy come to life on the big screen. But frankly, if the science fiction genre is any guide, I'm not holding my breath. Star Wars should have opened that door, but in the years since Return of the Jedi we have seen relatively few really good scifi movies to speak of. And the attempts are usually the same script over and over again. (Aliens attack...fight them off...yeah, we won!) In fact, many of our most important scifi themes have not been explored in movies (I admit I have not watched all the "B" movies out there, so maybe they've done more). I just know that when I go to the scifi section in a movie store, thinking that would be a good theme for the evening, most of what I see is horror. Blood and violence sells movies, I suppose.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
quote:Ten or twenty years ago, I can't imagine a fantasy cleaning up like this. It's amazing. Something in our society must be changing. Or is this just an anomaly? Could it be a one time thing, based on some special magic that only Tolkien could create?
I hope so. I’m not a fantasy fan, though I absolutely loved the LOTR. I’d probably look at a bunch of copycat fantasies in film the same way I look at the myriad fantasies on bookstore shelves – ignore them. However,
quote:I love to see a movie about dragons.
If a Peter Jackson would do the The Dragonriders of Pern, I think that might be worthwhile.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited March 01, 2004).]
posted
I would love to see C.S. Lewis's Narnia books turned into good movies. There was a pretty good cartoon version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe done over twenty years ago (although for the U.S. market they dubbed over the English accents with American accents, which strikes me as being ridiculous.) But now we have the technology to make a believable non-cartoon.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
Kolona brings up something I was thinking about - a Peter Jackson would do justice to The Dragonriders of Pern. I think a major holdback currently is that while LOTR really broke into the mainstream of fiction (it is on the reading list at my middle school - required reading!), and has an extended audience, Dragonriders - while huge with sf/f fans - hasn't really made that crossover. Don't get me wrong - those are among my top favorite books, and I would dearly love to watch (consult even!) on a Dragonriders trilogy, or single film. I think that would be the same issue for Shannara. Without that audience, would other majorly-popular sf/f books get the money and people and overall attention needed? I'm not sure.
Of course, it wasn't like Star Wars had that, or even Conan...
I would hate to see Dragonriders made with any less than what was dedicated to LOTR - better if they never do it.
Anyone have any other ideas for sf/f that could get such dedication by Hollywood? (Did you read that Charliz Theron will be Aeon Flux in the movie???)
posted
There have been several productions based on Tolkien's material, but up until now all of them sucked. Pure and simple.
Peter Jackson's talent and devotion to the material, as well as the financial backing of New Line Cinema, is what has made it a huge success. Sure its one of the greatest stories of all time, but plenty of great stories have been ruined by well-meaning directors and producers.
SO I would say it is more of a matter of who is directing and producing it than the fact that it was based on Tolkien's books.
[This message has been edited by rogozhin (edited March 01, 2004).]
posted
These are all excellent points. Yes, Tolkien's storytelling and imagination contributed to the success, and a long history of fans helped. And the technology of special effects has certainly improved. But I wonder if there isn't something bigger going on here.
The LOTR saga has been around for a long time, the Conan stories even longer, and Greek Mythology even longer than that.
The early 80s was a period when fantasy movies were relatively hot. Clash of the Titans in 1981 was followed by Conan the Barbarian in 1982. Conan was a pretty decent presentation of the Howard character from 1930's pulp magazines, but it didn't come close to getting 11 Oscars. In fact, Schwarzenegger's portrayal of Conan, which I thought was pretty appropriate to the character, got him a Razzie nomination for worst actor of 1983!
Back when Conan was released, the best actor was Ben Kingsley, the best actress was Meryl Streep, and the best director was Richard Attenborough. Can you imagine Kingsley, Streep, and Attenborough making a fantasy movie in 1982? No way!
Fantasy lived on the margins. Serious actors and directors wouldn't touch it (though Laurence Olivier did make a brief appearance in Clash). In those days Science Fiction managed to get a little mainstream play, thanks to George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg, but none of them was mainstream enough to win Best Picture. I might be wrong, but I think E.T. The Extra Terrestrial is the only sci-fi movie to even be nominated for Best Picture.
I believe that last night the fantasy genre reached a milestone in mainstream acceptance that is beyond anything yet achieved by science fiction.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited March 01, 2004).]
quote:This statement initially pissed me off. I clicked the reply button, preparing to denounce this assertion as to the sheepishness of Americans as idiotic and more than a little elitist. Including yourself among the sheep didn't take the edge off my outrage.
But, then I realized that your statement explains so much about American politics that you might well be on to something.
So never mind. Carry on.
--James
Unfortunately, the idea that people are sheep-like explains way too much about many, many, bad and horrible things. Can we all say "Barney"?
As to the mention of Conan as a possibly great fantasy epic. Think of it like this. No, Arnold was not a great actor, (then or now) and the John Milius films "Conan the Barbarian" and "Conan the Detroyer" were not exactly worthy of an Oscar, or well any kind of award. In fact, if you listen to the Directors Commentary on the 'Barbarian' DVD, you will hear that there was quite a debate on whether to cast this foreign, heavily accented man as the lead. But stronger heads prevailed when they realized that Conan had all of 30 lines of dialouge, so they chose Arnold for his body, not his acting chops.
But I digress, my point in mentioning Conan is that other than LotR, what fantasy book, or Character, is so widely known? I can't really think of one that would be common on the average persons list of heroic characters. I belive that part of what makes LotR such a sucess is that it IS a piece of culture. Even before the films were announced, Everyone knew about Frodo, Gandolf, Aragorn, etc. etc. I believe that for a fantasy film to garner such praise and Oscar worthy attention it must be about a character/book that is very well known to the general public. So, as Conan is the only other fantasy character that I know of off hand, I feel that a film that expands on the character could have a chance. I do agree that it would require great talent to create a emotional, powerful, sword slashing story to back up a director with skill, attitude, and a love of the genre.
posted
good points Doc, but my thoughts reagrding Potter and Pan are primarily that they have both had films made recently, Potters actually being sucessful.
Arthur could also be a great fantasy film, but well I personally have never been a great fan of the Arthurian legends because, well, so many people have written so many versions, so many different Arthurian events and universes, that I believe that the chances of creating a truly powerful story about Arthur that most of the public could accept would be far more difficult than doing so with the widely known of, but in general much less defined Conan. Besides, at the time I had forgotten about him...
posted
It would be interesting to see a film about the Colour of Magic and the Light Fantastic... Mind you I believe they made cartoon versions of them both, which is a bit of a spoiler...
I think one of the things that would make a future Fantasy film work is not whether the story is known, but who is doing it (actors and director) A bit of belief and wonders can be done. After all how many films do you watch based on books you have already read?
posted
What about Excalibur (1981)? I loved that movie (maybe I also had a crush on an actor or two...) - I loved the visuals, and thought they told a good version of Arthur.
Anyone have any nominations for a book that has what it takes (whatever that is - popularity beyond the traditional sf/f audience, etc.) to be a major movie? A Wizard of Earthsea just popped in my head, thought it's been years since I read the series (never got to Tehanu).
quote:There have been several productions based on Tolkien's material, but up until now all of them sucked. Pure and simple.
There was one that never had the second part filmed, though the first movie wasn't that bad. It had some kind of odd photography technique where they filmed real people then worked it somehow to make it look unreal. (I know my specificity is amazing all of you. ) Didn't hold a candle to Jackson's version, of course, but I remember being disappointed they didn't complete the series.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
quote:There was one that never had the second part filmed, though the first movie wasn't that bad. ... I remember being disappointed they didn't complete the series.
thats one of the things that made Jackson's version so good, he (and I think he had one of the major producers backing him up) refused to make any of the films unless they agreed to film all three movies at the same time so he could get them all the way he wanted them too.
posted
One of the interesting things I remember reading was that Jackson and others didn't think they could get a studio to commit to three at once, so they decided to try to squeeze it all into two movies. Studios still weren't going for it, but when they made the pitch to New Line, someone said, "I thought there were three books, so why aren't you doing three movies?"
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
The most interesting thing about a fantasy film becoming such a financial/critical success is what it says about the cultural/political climate.
With the current climate of media assisted fear (war, school shootings, widespread obecity amongst our children, and all the other news stories encourage varying levels of panic), people want escapist entertainment.
That in part explains the huge success of projects like LOTR and Harry Potter. Of course, as someone already pointed out above, the obvious love and care with which both series have been treated (the LOTR DVD extras are worth watching to get a glimpse of this) helps as well, because people aren't then just responding to the need for fantasy, but also to a quality product.
posted
IMO a movie needs to be able to stand alone. It's success should not have to depend on the audience's knowlege of the book it came from. I have to admit that I have not read all of LoTR yet. I absolutely refused to read it before I had seen all three movies because I wanted to know if the movies would be good even if I didn't know all about them already.
I think that's what made the LOTR trilogy so great. It took a great work and made it into a great movie that you could watch, understand and enjoy WITHOUT reading the books. Now, as I read LoTR for the first time, I can think back to the movie and notice the little things I missed. And parts that are in the book that are not in the movie are that much more enjoyable because they leave plenty for the imagination.
Fantasy films seem to either swim (like LoTR) or sink (Like Dungeons & Dragons...did anyone see that?! UGH!). I think it's all based on the film's ability to stand alone. Just like any other film you need it to be realistic and believable and it needs to touch the audience.
One more point...so far the best dragon movies that I've seen have been dragonheart (1 not 2 *shudder*) and Reign of Fire (although the army guy captain died in a really dumb way). I just wish they'd make a movie entirely about dragons. Little or no sapien envolement...that'd be cooooooool!
quote:just wish they'd make a movie entirely about dragons. Little or no sapien envolement...that'd be cooooooool!
That wouldn't work for me, as dragon stories generally don't -- work for me, that is. The only reason I liked the Pern series (actually, only the first two or three, then they got boring) was the unusual relationship between the dragons and humans. That captured my attention.
Dragons alone, like any animal alone, would need to be humanized in order for an audience to relate. (Think Animal Farm.) I think we had a similar discussion on a past thread about aliens. Animals, even dragons, and even more than aliens, might run the risk of becoming cartoonish without a human foil.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
