quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
For non-fans of LOTR, like nuts and I, these are dull movies. I have no doubt that Peter Jackson did the best job he could with the material at hand and even improved some things from the actual books (for example, Borimir's death scene is way more powerful on film than it reads on the page). That said, whether it's the visual effects, or the Shire (and that dreadful Celtic music that goes along with it), or Hobbits, it's hard to find any emotional worth in these movies; and those talking trees! Boring. LOTR is very fan-specific, so for the casual viewer like myself it can hit like 3 hours I'll never get back.

---

I have no problem with you guys not liking the films, but I think what counts is that they make the effort to be emotional. From there it's just subjective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
Russian Ark is a cool name for a director! Michael, what else has Russian Ark directed?

---

What a difference an article makes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:

Well, for me, the emotion of the LOTR is the strongest aspect. No matter how many special effects there are, the character work is always more powerful. And it is certainly there. It shines through the effects. From Sam's speech as Frodo lies in his arms on Mount Doom, to Frodo's voiceover of how the journey has changed him, and Sam's little child running into his arms. It was overwhelming for me. I can't even begin to count how many times that film made me cry.

But we all have different tastes. However, I get tired of people thinking that every special effects film (of which LOTR had to be) is devoid of emotion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
By the way, Russian Ark is a high-class film; it's a shame that there are too many obvious technicalities for it to be all one shot

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Now there's a film! The long takes in Children of Men are the sterling example of perfect direction and perfect use of CGI today.

---

Really? You like that CGI baby? haha. I was bored to death by this film. Alien Vs. Predator 2 will be better than Children Of Men. Didn't that Alfonso guy direct a Harry Potter movie? Yuck!

Having said all that... The visual storytelling is very strong, even though it gets esoteric, and pretty technically amazing. I'll probably watch this one more often even than those DePalma films I wish I liked. It's so well put together, even if dramatically the whole thing operates at about 60% the quality of its craft.

At least with RUSSIAN ARK, I don't feel anyone could have made a more interesting film about Russian history (which fortunately I'd studied a semester before seeing it) than what Sokurov did here. And if holding a shot for as long as possible was what really grabbed me, this would probably win over CHILDREN OF MEN.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
[b]
Well, for me, the emotion of the LOTR is the strongest aspect. No matter how many special effects there are, the character work is always more powerful. And it is certainly there. It shines through the effects. From Sam's speech as Frodo lies in his arms on Mount Doom, to Frodo's voiceover of how the journey has changed him, and Sam's little child running into his arms. It was overwhelming for me. I can't even begin to count how many times that film made me cry.

But we all have different tastes. However, I get tired of people thinking that every special effects film (of which LOTR had to be) is devoid of emotion.

<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

LotR is filled with soppy sentiment, not emotion. The only actors to resonate emotionally in the entire film are Ian McKellan (especially his "death"), Sean Bean, and Viggo Mortensen (and I'll credit Andy Serkis for some great work too). The funny thing is, all of those actors are world-class, unbeatable actors that can avoid nasty sentiment. Notice how none of them have been in a silly Steven Spielberg movie?[/B]

---

Right...that's why many people are moved by the films and why critics comment on its emotional core. It's not "soppy sentiment"; it's called raw emotion.

I can understand the repeated "Oh, Sam!" and even the Grey Havens being labeled as soppy, but not the rest of the film. You would call the Rohirrim charge soppy? Or Merry's speech to Éowyn? Frodo's "threads of an old life" voiceover? There is nothing soppy about a child running into her father's arms upon his return.

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:

Right...that's why many people are moved by the films and why critics comment on its emotional core. It's not "soppy sentiment"; it's called raw emotion.

These films move people and make them cry. They are clearly effective; that's what emotion can do. I don't know what you consider effective emotion, but I can't agree with you.

---

"Raw emotion" is Gena Rowlands' performance in A Woman Under the Influence, it's Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon, it's Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy, or Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, or Ana Torrent in Spirit of the Beehive, it's Klaus Kinski in Woyzeck. Those are examples of films where the emotion matters, where it's key to the storyline. Overtly sentimental longing and messy love melodrama (speaking clearly of Aragorn's and Arwyn's psychic love in The Two Towers) is in no way "raw emotion" in this film lover's eyes. It's sad to say that Gollum was one of the few characters to really register his emotions on a human level. We can all understand his loss and his misery, it's written in Andy Serkis' performance (and the great CG). Aside from a few stand-out performances, the emotion in LotR is purely from Peter Jackson's ambition . . . and we all saw what became of his King Kong remake. Anyone remember that?

(Bernard Hill is one actor who stands out in the films as well - his line about 'no parent should have to lose a child' is awful, but he delivers it truly. He has many other beautiful moments too.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
[b]
Right...that's why many people are moved by the films and why critics comment on its emotional core. It's not "soppy sentiment"; it's called raw emotion.

These films move people and make them cry. They are clearly effective; that's what emotion can do. I don't know what you consider effective emotion, but I can't agree with you.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Raw emotion" is Gena Rowlands' performance in A Woman Under the Influence, it's Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon, it's Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy, or Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot, or Ana Torrent in Spirit of the Beehive, it's Klaus Kinski in Woyzeck. Those are examples of films where the emotion matters, where it's key to the storyline. Overtly sentimental longing and messy love melodrama (speaking clearly of Aragorn's and Arwyn's psychic love in The Two Towers) is in no way "raw emotion" in this film lover's eyes. It's sad to say that Gollum was one of the few characters to really register his emotions on a human level. We can all understand his loss and his misery, it's written in Andy Serkis' performance (and the great CG). Aside from a few stand-out performances, the emotion in LotR is purely from Peter Jackson's ambition . . . and we all saw what became of his King Kong remake. Anyone remember that?

[/B]

---

Are you one of those aspiring filmmakers who thinks most modern films are crap and only thinks of the older classics as great filmmaking?

Anyway, I don't really like the Arwen/Aragorn love story either, although the scene of Arwen standing next to Aragorn's grave is amazing in its poetry.

Critics praised Sean Astin for his performance in ROTK. What do you think of it?

I would say Ian McKellen and Miranda Otto are skilled in their performances as well.

Don't get me wrong...the sappiness is definitely there in some places. But in scenes such as Faramir's sacrifice while Pippin sings, Theoden and Eowyn's talk at Dunharrow, Gandalf's talk of death, and Frodo's voiceover near the end, I feel the emotion is very strong.

So, in general, are you suggesting that Jackson tries to put emotion in his films, but ultimately is not completely successful? I think he should at least be commended for attempting this in an age where emotion is usually thrown by the wayside.

Just curious, but are you not a fan of fantasy films in general? What do you think of Jackson's use of sweeping aerial shots? And what scenes do you find particularly effective?

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
This happened with the LotR trilogy; I prefer Ralph Baksi's visually fulfilling, psychedelic-influenced animated film over Jackson's films.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Are you one of those aspiring filmmakers who thinks most modern films are crap and only thinks of the older classics as great filmmaking?

---

No, nuts just wants to write for Empire one day so he'll be taken seriously. :P

Is it even possible to please people with both effects and emotion? It seems like people either want one or the other: a "turn-your-brain-off" special effects extravaganza or an artsy drama...just not a serious drama with effects...or one just hasn't been made yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by El Cid:

Wow. That movie was laugh-out-loud bad. It's the Plan 9 of animated movies.

---

quote:

---

Is it even possible to please people with both effects and emotion? It seems like people either want one or the other: a "turn-your-brain-off" special effects extravaganza or an artsy drama...just not a serious drama with effects...or one just hasn't been made yet.

---

What about Ben-Hur? Or The Ten Commandments?
That drama with effects isn't possible is misleading.
I tend to think the problem is simply in everyone's head. Some people go into Lord of the Rings expecting bombastic effects and grand battles, and are then annoyed when the director implements a profound storyline, or dares to let the battles revolve around drama.
Then there are those who seem to have this phobia in their heads, that a film with groundbreaking effects can't have a touching story. They go into this quite biased, already prepared to rip the film apart before the curtain even goes up, since all the media publications did their damnest to tell the world: FOTR is Khazad-Dum, TTT is the battle at Helm's Deep, and ROTK is the battle of the Pelennor fields.
These folks groan as soon as they see the Orc armies in the prologue, which is a shame.

And then there are people who go in completely unbiased and are surprised or even overwhelmed at how skillfully story and effects are mingled.
And of course there are also those whose opinion changes after seeing it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
The problem is this, you can't trust a geek with emotion, because the only emotion they know is there own.

---

What is this supposed to mean?

And gkgyver, you pretty much summed up what I think as well.

[Message edited by StarlessWinter on 10-18-2007]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
you can't trust a geek with emotion

---

Kirk

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:
Are you one of those aspiring filmmakers who thinks most modern films are crap and only thinks of the older classics as great filmmaking?

---

For the record, I like LOTR, but "raw" is definitely not a word I would use to describe any part of it.

"Geeks" or "fanboys" are hardly the only people who know nothing but their own emotions ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Vice versa, way too often are people being called geeky *because* they have emotional moments during LotR (or similar "big" films).

"Geeks" or "fanboys" are hardly the only people who know nothing but their own emotions ...

[Message edited by gkgyver on 10-18-2007]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Vice versa, way too often are people being called geeky *because* they have emotional moments during LotR (or similar "big" films).

"Geeks" or "fanboys" are hardly the only people who know nothing but their own emotions ...

---

The reason that it's called geeky in this case is that for the average person, fantasy has traditionally been the domain of geeks. In this case I'd say the appeal of LORD OF THE RINGS prob went a bit beyond the niche fantasy lovers to a large section of the population who would normally not go to see any old fantasy film.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:

(Nuts above and myself are more geeks of a different type... we're all into film-making as a craft, aesthetics and so on.)

---

Well, so am I, but can you not be both?

quote:

---

Is the "only know their own emotions" statement supposed to mean that Jackson cannot see what makes things effective for other people?

---

No, I just wanted to say that those who accuse so-called "geeks" of knowing nothing but their own emotions quite often know nothing but their own emotions too.

I surely understand that the fantasy genre is like a magnet for "geeks", but surely that only applies to a certain degree to LotR. It is possible to deeply love Tolkien AND have a normal life, you know.

Would you consider Christopher Lee a geek?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Is the "only know their own emotions" statement supposed to mean that Jackson cannot see what makes things effective for other people?<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I just wanted to say that those who accuse so-called "geeks" of knowing nothing but their own emotions quite often know nothing but their own emotions too.

I surely understand that the fantasy genre is like a magnet for "geeks", but surely that only applies to a certain degree to LotR. It is possible to deeply love Tolkien AND have a normal life, you know.

Would you consider Christopher Lee a geek?

After all, Lord of the Rings, and Tolkien's work in general, could be counted amongst "serious" literature, unlike other fluffy fantasy novels.

---

Right, but I was asking if that's what nuts_score meant by that statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gkgyver:
Okay, then why do you quote me when you talk to nuts?

---

Well, you responded to it as well, so I guessed you were understanding something that I was not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by StarlessWinter:

Well, so am I, but can you not be both?

---

Michael, I'm going to take a crack/rant at nut's love for PotC, since this is a topic of rigorous debate between he and I. My main grudge against his high (and outrageously ever-changing) opinion on that series has to do with Dead Man's Chest: At the time of it's release, he put forward to me the RIDICULOUS notion that DMC was on par with The Empire Strikes Back. ESB is one of my favourite films period, and it was and is still impossible for me to see the connecting dots between them--some like to pull out the love triangle thing and all that, but it doesn't fly. There's just no comparison between the two films: Visually, Peter Suschitzky cinematography is something to be behold, giving that movie a singular look outside of all other Star Wars outings; musically, IMO, it's John Williams finest score to date and pounds anything Hans Zimmer wrote for DMC to dust: HZ's action music never even comes close to achieving what Williams wrote for "Battle In The Snow," "The Asteroid Field," or "The Clash Of Lightsabers," and "Rescue From Cloud City"; and the scenes to match that incredible score are equally captivating: THERE ARE NO action scenes in DMC to match that intensity; and dramatically, the script for DMC NEVER EVER comes close to what Lawrence Kasdan wrote for ESB, regardless of what anyone thinks of Kasdan's directed films, he's a talented writer, no doubt about it; and did anyone care that Jonathan Pryce got his wig taken away from him at the end of DMC? It's a stupid dilemma, and even Johnny Depp jumping into that giant vagina that attacks the ship at the end of the movie, or the "surprise" ending where Shine shows up!

My problem with nut's opinion here is not only did he try and convince me to like DMC, but then he tried to get me to like Zimmer's score more than I actually did (outside of "The Kraken," the rest is a waste of time), and then after months of that, he admitted that it was retarded to have thought that DMC was anything more than a boring waste of time, and I couldn't have agreed more. I guess At World's End came out and made him flip over again (haha! come on, nuts, that scene where the Brit is walking across his ship while it's exploding around him in slow motion is MORONIC!!! COME ON!); and the only redeeming thing from that garbage was Zimmer's score, this time delivering the goods I wanted.

nuts: REACT!

In regards to PotC (and how did I know that my love of the franchise was to come up, especially when I'm negatively citing a more "ingenious" franchise?) and my love for it, it's simple. The franchise is the only one in recent memory (aside from Firefly/Serenity and the new BSG series) that has presented me with wonderful characters, grand adventure, complex stories with goals and drives for each and every character, and very worthy filmmaking, not to mention very impressive effects. And Sean, if I'm already a fan of David Cronenberg and Guillermo Del Toro, wouldn't I already be attracted to directors interested in vaginas? Wink, wink. As for the individual fleshed reasons why I think the PotC franchise is important in cinema history, you'll have to wait for my soon-to-be-Nobel-Prize-nominated book, Pirates of the Caribbean, or, How I Learned to Stop Listening to Sean and Trust My Heart. Look for it in a few years along with my first film that features the anatomical outline of a vagina somewhere amongst the art direction.

Of course, DMC is nowhere near as good as Empire (considering the latter is a frakkin' perfect film) but I still love DMC; yes, I'll readily admit it's the weakest of three however. Thanks for bringing up Suschitzky; bless that gifted man: a Star Wars, Rocky Horror, and every Cronenberg since Dead Ringers in one life? Amazing! And no one beats Kasdan's writing back then. What's happened recently, I don't know.

And, yes, gkgyver; Tolkien's writing has reached the level of serious literature, but I don't find it that appealing in the fact that his writing style could be toned down drastically and his books would be better paced. And, yes, sometimes I only consider my emotions (a bit pretentious of me, I'm sorry) but judging by all of the other so-called "geeks" who've taken the reigns of ultra-budget fantasy films, from Peter Jackson to Sam Raimi and to a lesser degree Guillermo Del Toro, very little justified emotion is visible in the characters. Sure, it's on the screen in the dynamic set-pieces and eye candy, but you have to invest in the characters to make them emotional. The only character that came out of the Spider-Man franchise as a fully-rounded, intelligent character was Harry Osborne; and his arc was nearly ruined by the dumb-founded logic present in SM3. Bryan Singer was not really a fan of the X-Men before he tackled those films, and the first two entries of that franchise are arguably the best superhero films made. The same for Chris Nolan and Batman Begins; he was more interested in making his Bond picture and just happened to find where the heart and soul of Batman lies. In this rationale, I would never trust Quentin Tarantino to make Casino Royale (let alone another movie, again); in fact, I might have avoided it all together, especially if he wanted to keep Roger Moore . . . err Pierce Brosnan. I's still with Del Toro for Hellboy 2, but he needs to do it all right, instead of only here and there. I would also never trust myself with something like the Green Lantern or The Catcher in the Rye.

Yuck James, I'm sorry you had to encounter aspiring filmmakers who were obsessed with Fight Club and Boondock Saints (yeesh, at least the former has good filmmaking and sound design over the latters complete lack of anything intelligent in the entire film!). I've met those jokers too, and I can't wait until they start growing on Tarantino's ass the same way that Robert Rodriguez and Eli Roth have. Good luck with the coke and exploitation-fest parties, fellas!

Anyway, I don't think it's an issue of whether or not the emotion/character development is there; I tend to think it just depends on whether or not you were interested in the story from the beginning. People who just didn't prefer the type of story were never going to involve themselves in it anyway, and therefore they have no reason or care to see what that story contains. Good character development or an emotional arc alone will not make an audience love what they simply aren't interested in.