What some miss about Lord of the Rings

As if I didn't have enough to do, I came across some editorial somewhere where one comment in particular really struck me. The author scorned The Lord of the Rings, dismissing it as something adults should have outgrown and that she was disgusted that so many adults obviously feel quite strongly in favor of the movie!

Now, I find this interesting because it is an incredibly timeless and classic story of FRIENDSHIP, honor, and doing what is right -- against all odds.

Does any adult believe that grownups enjoy the movie because it has mythical creatures, magic or cool monsters?

That may be a very small part of the appeal, especially when technically they were very well done, but the real issue is that it is a tale about PEOPLE. Yes, people are the stars of the saga.

Is it really that difficult to see past the window dressing of a magic ring and hideously ugly monsters? Is it too hard to imagine that a biped who talks and thinks like a human is pretty much like a human -- ie., still an individual who is motivated by events, has passion, courage, honor and more? Despite being name dwarf, halfling or elf?

Surely it is not too mentally exhausting to see the individuals as such and admire their actions?

In one sense, Lord of the Rings is a grand 'buddy movie' with class, action, drama, comedy, excellent cast and timeless story.

What appeals to those who enjoy Lord of the Rings is that the bonds of friendship and honor can withstand the near ending of a world. Wouldn't it be a nicer world if more of such types of friendships existed?

In this world of all too disposable friendships, a movie like Lord of the Rings reminds us of the value of true friendship, respect and that it is within us all to do our heroic best.

Just had to say that!!!

Joy :)

Post 1

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 12:10am

"Is it really that difficult to see past the window dressing of a magic ring and hideously ugly monsters?"

I would say you are overestimating the average intelligence of the masses. But that's just the cynic in me talking, right ?

Post 2

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 6:51am

Be nice, Francois. There's nothing wrong with hoping that people will see past the concretes and grasp the abstractions behind them, which is what the critic Joy mentions has failed to do.

Post 3

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 4:17pm

That's the funny thing though! I don't recall the name of the author of that editorial, but that type of editorial isn't the first I've seen of that nature by 'respected' voices in the community.

HOWEVER, it is funny to note that many people I know personally from medical doctors, researchers, technicians, cashiers to floor sweepers all see past the window dressing and LOVE the movie and for what I consider to be the right reasons -- ie., not the window dressing but the actual story of the relationships, the sense of honor and committment against all odds, all that.

Yet apparently some posing as intellectuals, bash the movie and perhaps believe they will influence others from respecting it?

I don't understand the dynamic and it's just surprising to me that the author leveled THAT kind of complaint against the movie. I liked the movie so much, I would have a hard time finding fault with it, but of all the things that might have been faulted, it was something so silly? By someone with a national voice?

Just a very curious thing.

Joy :)

Post 4

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 7:45am

I don't think even a cynic would believe that the "less intelligent masses" would go to see a movie just for the cool monsters in it without a story, battles, passion, determination.

The themes that come through in a story aren't dissolved because there are imaginary beings in it any more than if there are fictional (but potentially real) buildings in it.

-E

Post 5

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 10:09am

Elizabeth, I have been a cynic, and I can still be cynical at times. However, I still shivered in excitement and anticipation at every turn of the film's plot, warmed at the displays of affection between Arwen and Aragorn, and was moved to tears both by Boromir's efforts to redeem himself after his failed attempt to steal the Ring from Frodo and by Aragorn's desperate attempt to rescue Boromir. I think that a person would have to be genuinely soulless not to appreciate such a spectacle as the first LotR film, and I myself look forward to seeing The Two Towers.

Post 6

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 9:25pm

Empirical evidence indicates that "the masses" will not go to see a movie in large numbers simply because it has cool monsters in it. I offer REIGN OF FIRE as an illustrative example. It had cool monsters in it -- dragons, and lots of them. It was, shall we say, not as successful as FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING was.

There is a certain type of person who persistently misjudges the reasons behind the success or failure of films. If a well-done version of HAMLET scores at the box office, they'll say "I guess Denmark is hot this season." If a badly-done version of HAMLET flops, the response is "I guess patricide is out right now." At no point does an examination of the quality of the script, characters, ideas or values dramatized by the film come into play.

(For some reason, this reminds me of a very bizarre review of APOLLO 13 I read in my local newspaper when it was released. The reviewer obviously wanted to pan the movie, but couldn't say why. He wound up condemning it for a lack of interpersonal conflict. Hello? It's a MAN VERSUS UNIVERSE story! It isn't *supposed* to have interpersonal conflict! I think the reviewer just couldn't handle a story in which engineers backed by reason and technology score a heroic triumph, but couldn't admit that to themselves. But I digress.)

Post 7

Friday, November 22, 2002 - 6:32am

You're right; a movie isn't guaranteed success just because it looks cool. If that were the case, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within would probably have outgrossed Star Wars. Now, I won't speak for the masses, but it wasn't the monsters that moved me when I saw The Fellowship of the Ring; it was the story and characterization. Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and the others were heroes.

Post 8

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 1:58am

This is nowhere near involving the Lord of the Rings movies and their theme, but I thought I would just say something about another fantasy series I've been reading that may interest some folks, since this seems a likely sub-forum to do so. Terry Goodkind's very popular Sword of Truth series is the story of Richard Rahl, the archetypal fantasy "rags to riches" hero...(though, he was rather heroic in the first book, before he gained immense power). And he is a Hero. He adheres to Justice, Truth (his sword is called truth...hint hint...) Morality and Personal Courage. He is written with an amazing depth of charecter and self-esteem. But most, and best, of what he possesses is ~rational thought~. In one book, "Faith of the Fallen", he carves a magnificent statue of himself and his love, and proceeds to topple a truly collectivist, altruistic society ~single-handedly; a society that resembles Soviet Russia, though in a fantasy, wizards-and-dragons-type setting.(Which I don't think has been represented often in Fastasy fiction.) Richard Rahl represents and promotes Reason, Rational thought, rational selfishness...good stuff. I have wondered if the author, Goodkind, is in fact a latent adherent to Objectivism. Anywho, just wanted to throw this out there, for those who haven't heard of this series. It's worth reading.

Post 9

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 - 2:02am

That's ~Fantasy Fiction~ not fastasy fiction....Im not sure what Fastasy fiction is....quick reading?

Post 10

Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 5:35pm

Well, Jeremy, Goodkind is releasing another Sword of Truth novel called Naked Empire really soon now. Probably in July, in fact. Nice to see another Goodkind fan here; welcome!

Post 11

Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 11:12am

Yeah, I've been waiting for Goodkind's Naked Empire for quite a while. That's the catch with reading a series. You zip through the text in a couple days and have to wait a couple Years to get the next installment. But hey, I'll accept the wait (and the cover price) as the cost of their art.
J

Post 12

Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 7:17pm