TDK - Final Judgment - This is it?

[Phoenix Dark]

Well duh but it's such a childish attempt to troll win an argument. Twilight is bigger than Star Wars right now...but who gives a shit

[Cheebs]

I really wonder how long Potters impact on pop culture will last.  It seems to me at least after the last book came out that interest in harry potter plummeted. The fact there are still 3 more movies probably will delay whatever longevity it has though, but I am curious to see if its popularity will stand the test of time.

[The Fake Shemp]

Yet, Star Wars is still heavily referenced in almost every medium decades after it exploded into mainstream consciousness.  Lord of the Rings never had the longevity to stay "in" for more than a couple of years.  That includes the latter part of the 60s and its brief resurrection earlier this decade courtesy of Peter Jackson.

Harry Potter has become more popular (albeit less regarded by those with taste) than Lord of the Rings ever was and ever will be.

[Phoenix Dark]

I think it'll remain a staple of children's novels in the future, as well as the fantasy genre in general. The days of it being a mania are over though, but that doesn't mean the book will lose interest. Consider LOTR mania in the 60s for instance. No one was going crazy over the books in say the 80s but it was still selling well and remains a staple of the genre to this day

[The Fake Shemp]

It was never as popular in the 60s as Harry Potter was - there was no real Lord of the Rings "mania".  The term "Frodo Lives!" was probably used by more people that didn't even read the books than those who did.  It was a stupid hippie thing.

[Cheebs]

I doubt people will be quoting gollum in 20 years in movies/tv shows, but darth vader and yoda will still be. Hell does anyone still do dumb gollum impressions? That seemed to die out quickly in like 2003.

[The Fake Shemp]

Because like I said, the movies were a fad.

We will be talking about them when VH1 does their I <3 THE 00s special and that's about it.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm not arguing it was more popular. There was a big mania in the 60s for the series but that didn't compare to the Potter craze. That being said, the book remains the second best selling book of all time. It's a quiet movement which is why Potter might surpass it in sales eventually. People discovered LOTR in college, in some cases during high school. On the other hand as a children's series many people started Potter young and "grew up" with it. In terms of entry fantasy it's far more accessible than LOTR obviously and young people will continue to pick up the series after their older siblings are long done with it.

I started LOTR in middle school but didn't finish it until high school (lost my interest until that point).

[Phoenix Dark]

Comparing Star Wars to LOTR makes little sense. Star Wars was a cultural phenomenon in the US (and abroad but we're focusing on the states). The LOTR films were based on the biggest fiction book of all time, revived the franchise, etc...but in terms of cultural significance it doesn't touch Star Wars and no one is arguing that. There won't be mentions about LOTR in history books.

Jaws is another film that had more of an impact, same with the Exorcist to a lesser degree. I'm not familiar with any recent films that compare to those types of movies that changed things on such a broad level. 

[The Fake Shemp]

So basically you now agree with us.  Awesome.  Let's move on.

Things more popular than Lord of the Rings:

Star Wars
Jaws
The Exorcist
Alien
Terminator
Mickey Mouse
Harry Potter
Cabbage Patch Kids
Twilight
The Dark Knight
Titanic
Soulja Boy

[Cheebs]

E.T. is easily bigger than LOTR I would say.

[Phoenix Dark]

I never disagreed. My problem was with the "fad" label which was pretty weak. If anything is a "fad" it's Twilight. LOTR and Harry Potter certainly aren't fads that appealed to limited demographics

edit: forgot about ET.

[The Fake Shemp]

This is true.

And this is not a knock of Tolkien's work.  The trilogy is undoubtedly a literary success and one of the best fantasy works of all-time, but it has never been a lasting pop-culture sensation - if you can even call its brief moments of mainstream popularity that.

The movies were fads.  They won some acclaim, made a lot of money, Hot Topic made some shirts and then they vanished from the pop-culture consciousness.  I'm not sure what else you could call them.

[Cheebs]

Willco, what will people be talking about more in 10 years you think: The Lord of the Rings films or The Phantom Menace? I am curious to see if anyone else agrees the cultural impact of Star Wars Episode eclipsed what the LOTR trilogy did (and again, cultural impact doesn't have to be positive to still stick)

[The Fake Shemp]

Probably neither.  Ten years from now, we'll look back and talk about how much Speed Racer was ahead of its time.

[Phoenix Dark]

And people will be talking about TDK in 5 years? Give me a break. Irrelevant and weak argument.

LOTR will continue to be The Blueprint for the genre for a long time. TDK has a similar effect on the comicbook movie genre but obviously the fantasy genre is broader/bigger. 

I'd classify them as great movies. One of the best trilogies of all time, if not the best. It's hard for a film to reach Star Wars status of cultural significance and we'll probably never see anything comparable in our lifetime.

[Cheebs]

Seeing how you mentioned LOTR's impact on the genre in films it makes me realize something. The thing is, a lot of studios thought that LOTR would lead to a huge boom of fantasy movies as gigantic blockbusters. Much like Star Wars did with the sci-fi genre in the 80's. Outside of LOTR and Potter nearly every big fantasy movie that studios cashed in on quickly after the LOTR trilogy were flops. In fact nothing has taken advantage of it, LOTR and Potter were in a bubble. Narnia seemed to be about to do it but the franchise imploded after the second movie was a flop.  Eragon and The Golden Compass anyone?

[The Fake Shemp]

Considering that Batman is a permanent fixture in pop-culture, I'd imagine people will be talking about the character in some form or another fifty years from now.  That's like saying people won't talk about James Bond five years from now.  Just stupid.

Nobody will be using Lord of the Rings as a blueprint for anything, because fantasy movies are bad investments.

[Cheebs]

Nobody will be using Lord of the Rings as a blueprint for anything, because fantasy movies are bad investments.

Exactly. The fantasy genre never took off like studios thought it would. The genre is dead film wise unless it has hobbits or harry potter.

[Phoenix Dark]

Brilliant Willco. TDK=Batman in general now? I'm talking about the film not the character

Cheebs: nearly every film you mentioned either sucked (Eragon, Golden Compass) or was sent out to die (second Narnia). From what I've heard Twilight is not a good movie but apparently the fans dig it, it's attracting people who didn't read the books, etc. I took my Eragon loving  brothers to see that pos and even they hated it.

Lets wait for better fantasy flicks to show up. I'm very interested in seeing how Game of Thrones turns out on HBO (assuming the pilot is picked up).

[The Fake Shemp]

We still talk about the 1989 Burton film.  The character and the films are interwoven.  To deny the pop-culture significance of the character as it relates to the popularity of the works said character stars in is stupid.

Especially when one of the works happens to be the biggest film in the past ten years.

Ten years from now, we'll be talking about The Dark Knight - probably because of Ledger's performance.  Just as Nicholson's performance has fueled discussion and references almost twenty years later.

[Cheebs]

Lets wait for better fantasy flicks to show up. I'm very interested in seeing how Game of Thrones turns out on HBO (assuming the pilot is picked up).

Like what exactly? There was tons of fantasy movies after LOTR and they all bombed and I cant think of any non-potter/lotr ones with any big budget studio ones in production. The fantasy genre did not take off in theaters outside of potter/lotr, it isn't something with potential. The genre is a dead-end unless its a well known franchise.

[The Fake Shemp]

Also, is "let's wait for better fantasy flicks" the new "wait 'till Spaceworld"?  Maurice, it's not like fantasy as a genre was born just years ago, when God himself descended the heavens and delivered upon theater projectionists everywhere the holy gospel of The Lord of the Rings.  That's ridiculous.

The fantasy genre was around before Lord of the Rings.  It's just filled to the brim with dead careers and commercial failures.  Why?  Because the line between total ridiculousness and fantasy is a thin one.

[Phoenix Dark]

All I'm saying is that the genre is full to the brim with shitty films that performed according to their quality. Sci fi is full of disasters but features more hits than the fantasy genre. There are plenty of awesome sci fi flicks, can't say the same for fantasy.

[The Fake Shemp]

So, basically, you agree with us that Lord of the Rings is a blueprint for nothing because the genre itself is prone to commercial failures?

THANK YOU.

[Cheebs]

But wait for what? Can ANYONE think of a single fantasy movie a studio is pushing other than LOTR/Potter? 4 years ago there was tons. There is a reason the genre has quickly been abandoned. Fantasy movies have no mainstream appeal outside of well known franchises. Come on PD. Even I gotta say there is no way to defend the fantasy genre as something people actually care about.

The studios aren't magically going to give it another chance after fantasy movie after fantasy movie flopped for the last 5 years.

Same thing happened after Gladiator with sword & sandal epics. Studios couldn't green light sword and sandal movies quick enough after Gladiator made shitloads. And all of them bombed and now the genre is dead again.

[The Fake Shemp]

Maurice can't accept the fact that years from now, most children won't even be literate and thus, Lord of the Rings will be regarded as nothing but some geeky film fad in the early 00s.  And that people will be buying Heath Ledger shirts in Hot Topic as the cultural heir to James Dean.

And while neighborhood, illiterate children bully and humiliate the socially awkward, home schooled Maurice Jr. for reading his e-books of those "dumb wizard word pages", they will be watching streaming HD Netflix of The Dark Knight over and over 'till they burn the pixels on their flatscreens.

[Cheebs]

Just you wait till George RR Martin is unleashed on the public! Fantasy will be the next rom-com.

[The Fake Shemp]

Someone should make a tween fantasy rom-com for pasty white kids.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

o wait they did its called enchanted

[close]

[Phoenix Dark]

So, basically, you agree with us that Lord of the Rings is a blueprint for nothing because the genre itself is prone to commercial failures?

THANK YOU.

With respect to blueprint I'm talking about it being a reference on how to do shit right. The audience is there, they just aren't going to support the typical fantasy dogshit that's released in theaters. Eragon isn't a particularly clever Star Wars rip off but the series is pretty popular. Yet on every level the film was a disaster. LOTR was able to appeal to the hardcore fans and attract new comers. Eragon on the other hand faced pretty harsh hate from the fanboys. Twilight was able to satisfy fans and attract new people; initially I assumed the flick would fall off the charts but it's still climbing despite the majority of its fans already seeing it

So my point is that the genre can succeed if the flick is done correctly. Get the fanboys on board, appeal to broad demographics, and don't half ass stuff. And if you do half ass things release the film around Christmas ala the first Narnia.

[The Fake Shemp]

Okay, that's stupid.  Blueprint on what?  How to adapt literature that was already highly regarded?  It wasn't as if Peter Jackson crafted this awesome world on his own and pieced together this intimate tale of homosexual hobbits and forest folks banding together to save the world.

[Phoenix Dark]

Nor did I suggest that. It sucks that studios treat the genre with such little care or respect. A film's potential to do well is handicapped when it's an abdominal pos* and the genre is full of that shit.

*that's not to say crappy movies don't do well, but even shitty movies can be entertaining. Eragon/Compass/second Narnia/etc had little to no redeeming qualities

[WrikaWrek]

Hobits are the worst part of LOTR.

It's all about Aragon, Legolas....Grimlin? You know, the dwarf warrior. And Gandalf. The hobbits suck.

[The Fake Shemp]

Weren't there tons of fantasy flicks that did well in previous decades? Labyrinth, Willow, Princess Bride, etc?

Labyrinth was a commercial failure.  It's only remembered by children of the 80s thanks to advent of home video.  The Princess Bride is more of a satire than a straight-up fantasy.  Of the three you listed, Willow was the only one that performed well as a straight-up fantasy flick.

[Great Rumbler]

Probably neither.  Ten years from now, we'll look back and talk about how much Speed Racer was ahead of its time.

I think this is something that we can all agree on.

[DJ_Tet]

Weren't there tons of fantasy flicks that did well in previous decades? Labyrinth, Willow, Princess Bride, etc?

Willco pretty much covered it, but fantasy movies in the 80s were generally relegated to afternoon cable fare, they never did well in the theaters (Willow withstanding, although I think that movie is boring as hell.)  Legend was another high-profile bust (although Tim Curry is the man as usual.)  The Neverending Story was a pretty big hit, but it was nothing that stayed with us.  The Dark Crystal was widely lampooned as bloated (although its technical achievement seems even more impressive today.)  Krull was a childhood favorite but it's aged badly. 

Just because there were a lot of fantasy movies in that decade doesn't mean any were particularly sucessful.

There were a shitton of furry creature movies, but the only one that did well was Gremlins (and to a lesser extent Gremlins 2.)

[Cheebs]

Weren't there tons of fantasy flicks that did well in previous decades? Labyrinth, Willow, Princess Bride, etc?

Labyrinth was a commercial failure.  It's only remembered by children of the 80s thanks to advent of home video.  The Princess Bride is more of a satire than a straight-up fantasy.  Of the three you listed, Willow was the only one that performed well as a straight-up fantasy flick.

And in the case of Willow that was a George Lucas flick (I believe he wrote it right?), and back in the 80's prior to the endless shitty Lucasfilm movies of the 90's & 00's Lucas was able to people in theaters. Well other than Howard the Duck.

I rewatched Willow a few years ago, man that movie aged badly.

[TVC15]

The Twilight books are probably also better than the LOTR books, Willco.

[TakingBackSunday]

troll 2

[cool breeze]

right now the Nolan live commentary thing is going on and apparently someone asked him why Maggie Gyhllenhall was so ugly and if Joker calling her beautiful was a joke

[Eel O'Brian]

her doughy wrinkled face is quite shocking on blu ray

she looks like droopy

[Himu]

Hobits are the worst part of LOTR.

It's all about Aragon, Legolas....Grimlin? You know, the dwarf warrior. And Gandalf. The hobbits suck.

Bullshit. The Hobbits are total badasses in the books. They come to Hobbiton with bags of gold and spoils of war. Merry and Pippin have been morphed into almost human size because of Treebeard's drink, and they fuck Saruman up. The movies portray the hobbits as weaklings when in the books they fucked shit up and were badasses.

[TVC15]

Do you identify with the hobbits due to your own shortness?

[Himu]

Fuck you.