I don't think I am going to like the Lord of the Rings movie

I saw the trailer while watching Harry Potter. Not one line of dialogue in it seemed remotely natural. I can’t imagine watching an entire film where every line feels like it was staged to sound important. It seems to be trying way hard for the epic feel, and missing out on what makes a good movie- engaging characters. All style and no substance. Something so staged that it leaves no room for wonder- no room for screen magic. Seems very self-conscious about the whole, thing, too. And pretentious.

I think it is going to suck.

And by the way, since when has a fantasy movie ever done well in the States?

I don’t remember seeing a *Legend II, Krull III, * or Dragonslayer VII. I dunno, am I missing any from the last twenty years?

Hey, it can be all those things and still be well-loved.

Just look at the car wreck that is Gladiator if you want proof.

Harry Potter seems to be doing all right for himself… :wink:

From the quality of your examples, I’m beginning to wonder if you’re trying to be ironic, and if so, I apologize and congratulate you for whooshing me…

Anyway, as far as the OP goes – perhaps the lines from the trailer are “staged to sound important” because trailers tend to use important lines? And of course it tries to be epic – LotR is epic, by design of the author! Besides, what you call pretentious, some could call stylized…and if Tolkien’s style doesn’t sit well with you (and I seem to recall you saying it doesn’t, even sven, though I’m sorry if I’m misremembering that) you probably won’t like the movie. But then, how many people think they’ll like movies based on source material they dislike? I’m not exactly rushing out to rent, say, Ethan Frome

However, I suspect that I’ll love LotR. Only one more month to go… :smiley:

Well, if sequels are what you want, I present . . .

Beastmaster III

I can only think of one reason I might not like LotR…
Liv Tyler
Blech!! I can’t stand her, her face, her lips, her whole self.

Well, according to this, Conan the Barbarian grossed $37.567 million, a pretty good haul in 1982…

The Princess Bride didn’t do too badly.


Hmm, didn’t pass $100 million though. Although using that as an assessment is quite debatable, especially since it has a large fan base who have only seen it on the small screen. But plowing ahead and looking at the top 100 US films by total box office I count only 2 real fantasy movies. “Shrek” which should have real Elves (the best marker of fantasy as far as I’m concerned). Then there’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” No Elves but there are Whos. Those two films are 12 and 13 respectively. No no, I stand corrected. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” which does have Dwarfs (the 2nd best marker) comes in at 42, despite being released in 1937. Since Harry’s just about to pass $100 million and will without a doubt make it into the top 25 you can toss it in too. Some people are claiming Titanic will fall but I’ll believe that when I see it.

As for the LOTR I know I’ll see it through rose colored glasses as well as being tickled pink just to see Gandalf and co. live and in action. Especially since I wish the cheesy 70s version was never made. But I really hope you’re wrong and this is a huge success. Because if it is it will send all the Hollywood bigwigs over to Amazon, B&N and Borders in droves to find hot fantasy books to make into movies. Like “The Sword of Shanara” (drool) and others.

Although I haven’t seen the trailer since the bloody freaking cut it from the beginning of Harry Potter so they could show me some commercials!!!

I can’t remember the last time I correctly assessed a movie based solely on the trailer’s merits.

Hmmmm I dunno How about a little film known as Star Wars?

Sure it was set in space (Like Krull) but the plot and character archtypes are pure fantasy!

But it’s even more annoying when they go the other way. “Say, Bob, let’s go down to the Quickee Mart after we kill that Demon Princess and get ourselves a Slurpee and a burrito.”

Kull the Conqueror was pretty vile for that reason.

This is simple: IT’S THE TRAILER! Of course they’ll put all dialogue like that in it. I’m sure that in the 6+ hours that the trilogy will run there will be plenty of room for creating characters. I figure that for writers that’s the great thing about a trilogy is that you know you have time to include that stuff.

That said I’m not to hyped about the thing myself. Never been a big fan of LOTR.

Krull was in space? My memory must be fading, or I’m thinking of a different movie…

I agree with those who’ve said it’s not a good idea to judge a movie by its trailer, but my sentiments at this point lie with the OP. I suspect that all the charm of the books will be sucked out of the movie. Oh, it’ll have wonderful cinematography and terrific special effects, but it’s my hunch that it will be too “Hollywood” for me. Oh, and why is Elijah Wood playing Frodo? He looks nothing like what I pictured a Hobbit to be. Oh, that’s right, he’s cute, and will help sell the picture better than a true depiction of Hobbits ever would.

notcynical, how do you picture hobbits? Because for me Elijah Wood fits the description perfectly. Ian Holm on the other hand is very much not Bilbo.

And from what I’ve heard of the Cannes trailer (over 30 minutes), the movie is very much like the book in its atmosphere and pace.

Ian Holm is so Bilbo it’s kinda creepy…

Am I the only person here who’s totally excited about this movie?

Munch, it’s actually what I don’t picture them like that is my problem. I don’t picture them to look exactly like a teenage boy. I know that is hopelessly vague, so I think I’ll just drop it. As far as my hunch, I certainly hope the Cannes trailer is evidence that I’m wrong.

I don’t think so :wink:

Well most fantasy movies just aren’t that good. Legend, Krull, and Dragonslayer just didn’t find that big of an audience while in the theaters. Conan managed to spawn a sequel though.