Oh yeah, I remember those now you mention it .......

[Knight of Gondor]

I fully believe that the movies will remain a pinacle of cinematic achievement. The Lord of the Rings valentines and party supplies may fade, but the films will be remembered for generations.

Take a look at the books. They sure stuck around.

My problem with the movies was that the depth & background of the world Tolkien created was lost, the story was simplified to the point of triviality & the motivations of the characters was altered to the point of silliness in some cases.

I'm past the point of arguing it, but I disagree heavily with this characterization of the film(s).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Knight of Gondor

Take a look at the books. They sure stuck around.

Yes, but they are good.

Seems to me most people (apaart from die hard fans) have already forgotten about the movies, however, I suppose we'll see in 50 years.....

[Mithalwen]

I went to the movies, I quite enjoyed the movies, I bought the Extended Editions and really only watched the new bits .. I "lent" the Extended Editions to my God Daughter (lent in this context usually means kissed good bye to ....)..don't really miss them... but I am on my second copy of the book since the films came out.

I though the look of the films were great but I have that stored in my head, they don't have the hold over me that that the books or even the Radio Series has - I listen to the radio series systematically frequently where I tend to dip into the book. I don't know whether it is because I heard it first at an impressionable age (about 12) or because I am very voice sensitive and not so visually orientated (bad at faces can almost always place a voice), or because I prefer to provide my own pictures , or simply an age related thing that being a child raised before videos that story telling was the entertainment I was used to. All I know is that it is a perrenial source of enjoyment and comfort and the tapes don't get let out of my possession to anyone . Maybe others feel the same way about the films

[Anguirel]

I think the first two, by rights, should have a longer life-expectancy than the third.

All were visually beautiful, but money can buy much of that.

FOTR caught the elegiac essence of the book, and was also indisputably helped by Bean's Boromir and McKellen's Gandalf the Grey (he lost a lot of that roguish spark as the White).

TTT made the book into mincemeat with hearty zeal, but I still love it, far beyond either of the other two, I must say. Miranda Otto was a brilliant Eowyn, Dourif made Wormtongue, and the whole feel of Rohan seemed to have created something extremely evocative. The soundtrack was brilliant, the battle and its reasoning worked.

ROTK was over-Oscared. For me, only its beauty is going for it, really. The Field of the Pelennor was horrific, that whole subplot veered towards some of Orlando Bloom's more piratical films...the Frodo strand was essentially well done but marred by lembas antics, etc...

[Lathriel]

In university these movies aren't forgotten and a lot of people still talk about them. Actually, yesterday I did a Marathon which was lots of fun.
But I really don't think they will be forgotten just like that since these movies are a milestone in many ways and they also sparked the fantasy movement that's now going on with Narnia, Eragon (which is basically LOTR rewritten with a dash of Haprry Potter) and the Golden Compas which is coming out soon. So, I don't think they'll be forgotten, of course the hype is already gone but I wouldn't have expected that to last much longer anyway.

[Thenamir]

RE: Fantasy and film

I believe that the LOTR films will remain as classics for one reason in particular – that they are the first films that took the fantasy genre seriously, gave it the treatment it deserved.

In all movie making, there is an attempt to create a suspension-of-disbelief that makes us who watch the flick engage and even believe, if only for a short time. The aforementioned Neverending Story (OK) and Willow (horrors!) and most other fantasy films that I could name were made almost winking-and-elbowing the audience into an artificial form of that suspension-of-disbelief, as if to say, “yes, we know that we don’t have the budget of an insurance commercial, let alone a feature film, just humor us.” In my opinion, anytime you have a Muppet as a main character in a movie that does not clearly have the word “Muppet” in the title, you’re wasting my money and insulting my artistic intelligence. (The same could be said about any movie starring David Bowie, but that’s a minor digression.)

PJ’s Lord of the Rings will be remembered as the first fantasy film with to which was given enough resources (in time, talent, budget, and attention to detail) to bring a beloved story (reasonably) faithfully to the screen. Comparing LOTR to prior fantasy films is rather like comparing old black-and-white sci-fi a la Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon to the first Star Wars movie, now known as Episode IV, A New Hope. And just as Star Wars revived the sci-fi genre (look at all the quality sci-fi that has come out since…along with some not-so-quality stuff), the LOTR movies have revived the fantasy genre – the floodgates are open, Narnia (wow!) Eragon (yawn) are just two examples, and more are in the works.

I’m with most folks here, I wasn’t 100% happy with everything that PJ did with the books to make a good movie, but as a movie I was definitely 100% happy with the results. It’s an amazing achievement, and I think it will be well remembered down thru history.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Willow (horrors!)

Oh I remember rather liking Willow ... and I am sure it can't just have been because of Val Kilmer who was rather buff at the time...

Dave, I discovered it at the hour long repeat stage and remeber suffering agonies of having to sit quietly as my parents visited friends on a trip to the midlands at the crucial time - letting me listen to it in the car was not an option..... boring grown up talk while the Battle of the Pelennor fields was happening in the ether. However my mother redeemed herself by tracking down the tape of the music for me for Christmas after much effort. I wore that out and so had to get the wit music editon when I finally was able to buy the full set 5 years ago. Had I hung on a few more months I could have got the CDs....... but I will sometime.. At least I got the poster...

I also think that the great achievement of the Radio version is that it handles "Book 5" so well which I found (despite Faramir) hardgoing in print.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

All I know is that it is a perrenial source of enjoyment and comfort and the tapes don't get let out of my possession to anyone . Maybe others feel the same way about the films

I have to agree. I have the BBC adaptation on tape, CD & on my mp3 player. I think I'd only read the book twice when the series was first broadcast (in 1981), so it became part of 'LotR' to me, & has remained so (Brian Sibley, one of the two adaptors, gives some thoughts about the series here. It was originally broadcast in 26 half hour episodes, & I remember listening to it on Sundays lunchtimes (repeated on Wednesday nights). A year or so later it was re-broadcast as 13 hour long episodes on Sunday afternoons. (Nice pic of three of the cast here during the recording - Michael Hordern as Gandalf, John Le Mesurier as Bilbo & Ian Holm as Frodo here & a few more here.

Very happy memories if that particular adaptation - & it captures the mood & spirit of the work far better than the movies (& I haven't heard anyone who knows both adaptations argue with that...)