Attack-Free Unpopular Opinion Thread

[Yxklyx]

All you LOTR haters are dead to me

[megladon8]

I find the battle in the forest at the end of Fellowship much more exciting than the larger scale battles in the following two movies.

[baby doll]

I wonder if there's really a case to be made for The Lord of the Rings trilogy as movies. With Star Wars, you could at least make the case, as Julie Turnock does in her book on blockbuster aesthetics, that Lucas was doing something new in the context of 1970s Hollywood, emphasizing kinetic movement, light, and colour over plot and character--though it's hard to see the film's originality today given its pervasive influence. But what's Jackson bringing to the table? I'll grant that the film was important historically for its financing and marketing strategies, but as a film it doesn't strike me as particularly accomplished even as an example of blockbuster filmmaking, certainly nothing to rival the best films of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or Paul Verhoeven.

[megladon8]

Ridley Scott is at his worst when trying to engage in “blockbuster filmmaking”.

[baby doll]

Ridley Scott is at his worst when trying to engage in “blockbuster filmmaking”.

I was thinking particularly of Alien and Blade Runner.

[megladon8]

I was thinking particularly of Alien and Blade Runner.

Yes. I don’t think either of those were attempts at making blockbusters, no?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I wonder if there's really a case to be made for The Lord of the Rings trilogy as movies. With Star Wars, you could at least make the case, as Julie Turnock does in her book on blockbuster aesthetics, that Lucas was doing something new in the context of 1970s Hollywood, emphasizing kinetic movement, light, and colour over plot and character--though it's hard to see the film's originality today given its pervasive influence. But what's Jackson bringing to the table? I'll grant that the film was important historically for its financing and marketing strategies, but as a film it doesn't strike me as particularly accomplished even as an example of blockbuster filmmaking, certainly nothing to rival the best films of Ridley Scott, James Cameron, or Paul Verhoeven.

I think it's less that Jackson reinvented the wheel and more that there were a shocking number of wheels needed to keep the big machine moving, and they were all handled with surprising efficiency. As an example of visual effects work, they can be lauded for their wide variety of effects, some of them groundbreaking (the CGI "massive" battle sequences, the motion capture work on Gollum as a first of its kind), others remarkably simple in construction and execution (the oversized miniatures for Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith). As an example of concurrent production, filming three three-hour movies at once. As a Lucas-similar approach of pulling much of the production out of Hollywood and building a national cinema apparatus in New Zealand that persists to this day (similar to how Star Wars was, as much as was possible, an independent film made under the auspices of a major studio).

Probably the biggest thing that Jackson brought to the table was his attempt to deliver a story in the fantasy genre with a relative amount of seriousness and maturity. There were outliers prior to him, obviously. Bakshi's Wizards, the twin fantasies of La Belle et la Bette, and Orphee, definitely the works of Miyazaki (and more depending on how you categorize fantasy, like Powell's religion-tinged A Matter of Life and Death). But the budget and live-action assets afforded Jackson were the kind almost always used in service of either Frank Frazetta goofs like Conan and The Beastmaster, serial-friendly adventures like The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts, kid quests like Labyrinth and The Neverending Story.

[Of course, that all depends on how you gauge things like "seriousness" and "maturity" and "intelligence."]

A good question is: do they need to be "new" or can they be sufficiently exciting as a renewal? Is it enough that they were of a genre style rarely granted large swathes of money and a production scale unseen almost since the days of David Lean? What I enjoyed as a teen was the very simple pleasure of enjoying imagination on-screen I hadn't seen before, of a size I hadn't seen before. Nowadays? I think they're still very entertaining movies, a new pinnacle in Hollywood swashbuckling. But I'm the guy who's perfectly happy to watch films-as-spectacle. I can't wait for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Give me that eye meat.

[baby doll]

Yes. I don’t think either of those were attempts at making blockbusters, no?

If Alien isn't a blockbuster, I don't know what is. It has a high-concept premise that can fit on a bumper sticker and the studio spent more on advertising it than they actually did on producing it (16 million for advertising versus an 11 million production budget).

[PURPLE]

I boycotted all of the LOTR and Harry Potter films because I didn't want Hollywood to be taken over by fantasy book adapdations. And I won! It was taken over by comic book adaptations, instead. I boycott almost all of those as well. I didn't win.

[baby doll]

I think it's less that Jackson reinvented the wheel and more that there were a shocking number of wheels needed to keep the big machine moving, and they were all handled with surprising efficiency. As an example of visual effects work, they can be lauded for their wide variety of effects, some of them groundbreaking (the CGI "massive" battle sequences, the motion capture work on Gollum as a first of its kind), others remarkably simple in construction and execution (the oversized miniatures for Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith). As an example of concurrent production, filming three three-hour movies at once. As a Lucas-similar approach of pulling much of the production out of Hollywood and building a national cinema apparatus in New Zealand that persists to this day (similar to how Star Wars was, as much as was possible, an independent film made under the auspices of a major studio).

Probably the biggest thing that Jackson brought to the table was his attempt to deliver a story in the fantasy genre with a relative amount of seriousness and maturity. There were outliers prior to him, obviously. Bakshi's Wizards, the twin fantasies of La Belle et la Bette, and Orphee, definitely the works of Miyazaki (and more depending on how you categorize fantasy, like Powell's religion-tinged A Matter of Life and Death). But the budget and live-action assets afforded Jackson were the kind almost always used in service of either Frank Frazetta goofs like Conan and The Beastmaster, serial-friendly adventures like The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts, kid quests like Labyrinth and The Neverending Story.

[Of course, that all depends on how you gauge things like "seriousness" and "maturity" and "intelligence."]

A good question is: do they need to be "new" or can they be sufficiently exciting as a renewal? Is it enough that they were of a genre style rarely granted large swathes of money and a production scale unseen almost since the days of David Lean? What I enjoyed as a teen was the very simple pleasure of enjoying imagination on-screen I hadn't seen before, of a size I hadn't seen before. Nowadays? I think they're still very entertaining movies, a new pinnacle in Hollywood swashbuckling. But I'm the guy who's perfectly happy to watch films-as-spectacle. I can't wait for Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Give me that eye meat.

I'm not opposed to films-as-spectacle. I'm opposed to sameness. Making a fantasy film on a bigger budget, with better special effects, and a more sombre tone than '80s films like The Never-Ending Story and Labyrinth in itself doesn't strike me as especially imaginative.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm not opposed to films-as-spectacle. I'm opposed to sameness. Making a fantasy film on a bigger budget, with better special effects, and a more sombre tone than '80s films like The Never-Ending Story and Labyrinth in itself doesn't strike me as especially imaginative.

Okay then.

[megladon8]

I’m feeling attacked.

Someone call an adult.

[Skitch]

I personally like Two Towers best, jussssssssst barely over Fellowship.

Dalton is a GREAT Bond. He feels really lethal.

[megladon8]

I personally like Two Towers best, jussssssssst barely over Fellowship.

Dalton is a GREAT Bond. He feels really lethal.

Exactly. People who love Craig and hate Dalton are weirdos. They’re playing the same character.

[Yxklyx]

I was lukewarm about the LOTR films at first but after I watched all the "making-of" features and listened to the commentaries I found myself unable to critique the films anymore. So much love, passion, and work went into making them that I can't see them as anything but a masterpiece work of art.

[baby doll]

I was lukewarm about the LOTR films at first but after I watched all the "making-of" features and listened to the commentaries I found myself unable to critique the films anymore. So much love, passion, and work went into making them that I can't see them as anything but a masterpiece work of art.

There are lots of mediocre films that were made with love, passion, and hard work. That's not a reason for liking them as films.

[Irish]

Dalton sucks. You can't play Bond as that dour after Connery and especially Moore.

LOTR: The movie is an achievement in scale and scope. I get the criticisms, but I think it's also a little ... weird? to tag it as cliched when the source material almost established an entire genre by itself.

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

I wonder if D_Davis lurks? He'd be into this convo for sure.

[MadMan]

Out of the Past is just a bad film. There's really nothing to recommend to it above hundreds of other movies. There are tons of B movie noirs that are much superior films.

Well at least you love the LOTRs movies.

[MadMan]

Had to look it up. And I laughed after your description and then watching it. I never remembered this scene...

That part is hilarious. Its the Suicide Bomber Olympics!

[Dead & Messed Up]

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

Oh, for sure, and I hope my post didn't come off as slighting them, because I find them delightful. I know people more experienced with fantasy distinguish between "high" and "low" fantasy, but I don't even like that verbiage. One's not intrinsically more high-minded or noble in my eyes, they're just chasing different things.

[megladon8]

Dalton sucks. You can't play Bond as that dour after Connery and especially Moore.

LOTR: The movie is an achievement in scale and scope. I get the criticisms, but I think it's also a little ... weird? to tag it as cliched when the source material almost established an entire genre by itself.

Conan and Beastmaster rule and not to go full nerd but they're in a different class (low fantasy compared to LOTR's high fantasy, IIRC.)

I wonder if D_Davis lurks? He'd be into this convo for sure.

I still speak to him regularly and he definitely, most definitely does not.

Can’t blame him, either

[MadMan]

I missed out on Davis leaving, but I think I have several ideas why. Can't say I blame him, either.

[MadMan]

Irish I feel that Dalton was closer to how Bond is in the books. I do concede that he was much different after Connery's even balanced take and Moore's campy spin on Bond. I guess my lame opinion is that I like all of the Bonds.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Is it unpopular to say I liked Lazenby as Bond and wish he got another movie/opportunity?

[megladon8]

Moore is my least favorite.

Lazenby was all right. Wish he had a more Connery-toned film. OHMSS felt like it should have been Moore.

Brosnan could have been the very best, but only had one good movie.