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

[davem]

Well, its a good few years since the movies were out. We've had the DVD's, the tie-ins, the conventions, but...

Will the movies stay around in the public consciousness, or was it all a brief candle that has all but guttered out, & which will now be gradually forgotten?

I remember reading that the movies were masterpieces which would be forever popular, even that one day the books would be forgotten & it would be Jackson's LotR which would be the one that survived & become 'Lord of the Rings'.

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. Along with PJ's tendency to go over the top with the violence & the 'comedy' (How we laughed at Gimli's flatulence & his tendency to fall off horses - as well as the 'short' jokes, the 'short' jokes, the odd 'short' jokes, & PJ's tendency, when all else failed, to resort to 'short' jokes.)

But enough of that. Will the movies live on as anything more than a cult thing for a while & then be forgotten? Nothing seems to be able to stop the rise of the books - we have more serious studies of Tolkien's works out now than at any point in the past, & more seem to be coming out all the time. Tolkien is becoming increasingly seen as a major literary figure, worthy of serious study - thanks in the main to CT's work on his father's unpublished writings. I know CT has been attacked for not selling the movie rights of The Sil - some of which attacks have been incredibly offensive (Google Christopher Tolkien & look at no 3), but, apart from giving us a few forgettable action movies & making a lot of money for the studios, would there be any point in making Sil movies?

In short, will the movies become a permanent part of 'Tolkieniana' or was the whole 'Ringers' thing a flash in the pan? Will it be the movies that are forgotten while the books go from strength to strength?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

An interesting thought. . .

I think that the movies can be a permanent thing, but much depends on wich status they get at the TV networks and so on. For the time beeing they will be rememberd and shown repidedly on the telly, but I think that for them to be rememberd and loved by the general public they need to be recognised as brilliant movies telling a brilliant storry! You know kind of a Star Wars status, less can do it, but unless they get high status they will be forgotten. It is very simple, they are very long and you cannot really watch one and let that be that. You need to see all three of them. And lets face it no one want's to take up 9 hours of primetime TV with a film no body really cares about.

Of course there is a chance that it will be a cult movie, but I don't see that happening. They are simply not good enough or strange/suprising/different enough (like Rocky Horror Picture Show).

it is sure that they will be rememberd by "Tolkien Freaks", but never will they out-shine the books.

So what I am really saying is that I don't know! It depends. . .

[Macalaure]

In my mind, there are two ways to look at the movies. When I look at it as an adaptation, then I end up with all the problems you mention - and a lot more. But when I look at it only as a movie, then they belong to the most brilliant movies (in their price range) that have ever been made. I expect them to become a classic, just like the old Star Wars movies which lasted over 20 years already. What happens after that, I don't know. Maybe we live to see a remake when the Jackson movies are outdated somewhen?

The books will surely never be forgotten. Fifty years after their publication they are as alive as they have ever been (and were even before the movies). But I fear they will end up as this someday.

Just like the Bakshi film made its way into "Tolkieniana" to some extend, the Jackson movies will. To some fans it will be more, to some less, because some people like movies more than others in general. And there will be many (shall I dare to say: lesser) fans who prefer the movies to the books. But that does no harm, I think.

A Silmarillion movie, if well done, would be even greater to me than a LotR movie, because it's a much more difficult task. The LotR has been called unfilmable, so what are we supposed to call the Silmarillion then? It would take a dedicated director, inspired writers and a studio which really believes this can work, just like the LotR took, but to a much higher degree. If one wants to film more or less the whole book, and not just Beren and Lúthien for example, one might need at least 5 ones of 3 hours or more. I doubt not that it can be done, but, as you asked, why should it be done?
I thought about giving reasons now for quite a while and can only give this weak one, that the Silmarillion is inaccessible to many LotR and Hobbit readers and this might change after a movie. All I can really say is that at least I would truly enjoy it if I could see the magic of the book on a screen, as far as it can be caught, adding to the overall magic, not replacing it. Maybe a director and a studio will be daring enough to stay closer to the book after they got to see how well Jackson and New Line did financially.

(cross-posted with Rune)

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Will Lord of the Rings have comparable impact as Star Wars? The same impact, no, but comparable, yes. LOTR is the SW of the early 21st century: the huge dream project that revolutionizes filmmaking and develops a huge fan base.
Which, I think LOTR are far superior to SW as movies (the original trilogy; don't even mention the new one in the same sentence as LOTR): better script, better directing, better acting, and of course a much better story.
But SW is literally a cultural icon now. Will LOTR achieve that status? I doubt it. The Hobbit's release will get everyone excited and on the M-E bandwagon again, for a while. But I don't think it ends up with a Star Wars type impact.

BTW, this is totally my dream, and completely implausible, but I want to make Silmarillion films. I want to make Beren and Luthien, Children of Hurin, and others. I think that if a director with enough vision could make Sil films (probably not PJ), it could be another film watershed. It would be high myth and romance on the screen, something that, to my knowledge, has never happened. It would essentially create a new film genre.
Don't know if any of that makes sense. Ah, never mind, I'll just make them myself. Look out for BEREN AND LUTHIEN, premiering in, oh, say 2031.

[Alcarin]

Lotr is written like....40 years ago..he still does quite good tho, and also i think it will be just as popular 2000 years from now as it is today...i mean, take shakespeare or that writer from the Old Greece..they are still very popular. Also, The Hobbit Movie is COMING! I guess the Lotr-fandom will go up again!

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I think that the LOTR movies will always be remembered. If we leave aside whatever problems there are in translation from page to screen, what we are left with is a set of three excellent movies: remarkably acted, beautifully shot, and well-written (for the most part). They gathered a huge following and broke box-office records. Return of the King made an unprecedented sweep of the Oscars. The special effects were groundbreaking. I just don't see any way that the movies will be forgotten. Perhaps they'll fade over time, but I don't think that something so immensely popular will just disappear.

I'm not sure that LOTR will ever become part of the common consciousness the way that Star Wars is, in spite of being (in my opinion) much better. Star Wars is the series that everyone has seen (though opinions on it vary widely)...But will it ever reach the point of being so easily recognizable, from the music to the faces to the script? I doubt it. I think that Star Wars is much easier to just sit down and watch. It's fluffy entertainment. It's not too serious, or too long, or too intense. LOTR, on the other hand, is a difficult undertaking for the average person: Each movie is a near-4-hour marathon. It's deep, lengthy, powerful, and emotionally complex.

I'm not saying the average person can't enjoy LOTR...However, the age of the LOTR following is probably much older than that of the Star Wars following. Seven and eight-year-olds love Star Wars. So do their older siblings and parents. However, I would hesitate before showing LOTR to a 7 or 8 year-old. Star Wars is a movie series that families can enjoy together...LOTR, not so much. That factor alone will probably make it impossible for LOTR to gain the same status as Star Wars.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

II'm not saying the average person can't enjoy LOTR...However, the age of the LOTR following is probably much older than that of the Star Wars following. Seven and eight-year-olds love Star Wars. So do their older siblings and parents. However, I would hesitate before showing LOTR to a 7 or 8 year-old. Star Wars is a movie series that families can enjoy together...LOTR, not so much. That factor alone will probably make it impossible for LOTR to gain the same status as Star Wars.

We might also want to consider the time in which the two respective trilogies were released: Star Wars in the 70's - 80's; LotR in 2001-2003. Back in the day entertainment was limited. Going to and seeing a movie was a special event - cable TV, though available, wasn't in our area of the world. One was limited to a handful of TV stations and videos via VHS were just becoming available. And, hold on to your seat, there was no internet!

Today one has many more entertainment options and so LotR many suffer a bit from all of the noise/choices, just like the second Star Wars trilogy (that and a bad story line ).

[doug*platypus]

I like the way that Star Wars has been held up as the benchmark to which the LOTR movies should aspire to. Star Wars has had a great impact on the collective pop culture of the world, and it will be interesting to see whether PJs films can achieve the same level of popularity or instant recognisability.

I think that the LOTR films start off at a bit of a disadvantage, because they were not about entirely new concepts. When Star Wars came out, we had hitherto no idea about lightsabers, Jedi Knights and the Force, and the moviegoing public had not been treated to such visually spectacular space battles.

On the other hand, hobbits, elves, Rings of Power and orcs have been around since Tolkien wrote the Hobbit. An entire genre of fantasy novels had been spawned long before PJ took up the torch, and we had already had a small spattering of fantasy films such as Willow or The Neverending Story. So, while they are undoubtedly the best fantasy films ever made, they are only one part of an already existing culture.

At a guess, I would say that the books of Tolkien will keep riding the new wave of popularity which was spurred in large part by the movies introducing new fans to Tolkien's work. And that the movies, while great works in their own right, will simply become part of the greater body of Tolkien related works. They may eventually live on as classics, but the books will I think have a greater following in the long run.

[Lathriel]

I think LOTR won't be forgotten easily. Especially if the hobbit comes out sometime.

The books are so well-loved and when you've read the book you would like to see the movie, right?(At least I always do)

Also this movie brought new CG technologies like the motion capture suit.

I just can't imagine LOTR being forgotten though of course there will be ups and downs.

[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.

[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...)