From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 2 Mar 2004, at 8:16 pm, Tom Beck wrote:
Does the success of LOTR bode well for future fantasy projects?
Yes. Many other projects (such as the Narnia Chronicles) are going ahead on the back of its success, and at least some of them will be good.
It will certainly be easier for fantasy projects to be greenlit now, since the "fantasy doesn't sell" myth is thoroughly busted, not just by LOTR but also the Harry Potter movies.
And we can at least *hope* some of them may be good. A whole TON of terrible SF crap was pooped out into the theaters after Star Wars became a blockbuster. I'm hoping we won't see a similar "goldrush" of lousy quickie fantasy movies intended to captialize on LOTR's popularity.
Or was it based, at least in part, on the legendary status of the Tolkien books?
Yes. The LOTR project probably benefited from more good will than any other project might have. But because of LOTR future projects will face less difficulties because of their genre.
I agree.
Would some other adaptation fare as well, regardless of quality?
Probably not, before LOTR. Now, after LOTR, maybe.
I don't think even now any other fantasy adaptations have a shot at equivalent levels of acclaim. I think they'll get more respect than before, but not the oscars, and not the $1.5 billion dollars in worldwide ticket sales.
For example, would a movie based on Guy Gavriel Kay�s masterpiece Tigana, even if accomplished on the scale of LOTR, with as good a cast, as fine an attention to detail, similar scope and beauty, be received with the same serious respect, or would it be relegated to the ghetto of escapist drivel?
I haven't read that, so I have no opinion on that particular example.
I haven't read it either. But I'm guessing that while it may not get relegated to the "escapist drivel" ghetto, it wouldn't get the same level of serious respect.
What distinguishes those fantasy projects that are taken seriously from those that aren�t?
Quality.
I think there's a number of reasons LOTR has gotten serious respect:
- The books the movie is based on are fairly well-respected as literature,
and arguably are classics, now almost 60 years old and still in multiple
print runs of all shapes and sizes. So it's fairly hard to immediately dismiss
the story as fantasy drivel.
- it has *earned* it, and proved that it has earned it, through its quality,
box office numbers, and acclaim from most of the hard-core book fans,
all over the course of *three* films. As I see it, the 11 Oscars for ROTK are
really a recognition for the trilogy as a whole.
- LOTR is arguably one of the most ambitious movie undertakings ever.
The studio took a colossal gamble, risking the entire studio's future, in
creating these movies. They risked it all to do the movies right, and they
pulled it off. That is the sort of achievement Holywood respects and recognizes.
Why is Buffy able to make at least a bit of a mainstream breakthrough while Stargate SG-1 remains a genre show?
Because Buffy is awesome and Stargate *is* just a genre show, albeit a very competent one that looks even better than it is compared to Voyager, Enterprise, Andromeda and suchlike tosh.
Isn't SG-1 a cable show, vs. Buffy on primetime network TV? It might be partially a matter of audience size. Then factor in that comedy/horror is a bit more mainstream than straight SF, and the Sarah Michelle Gellar babe factor.
Why did LOTR get full props while The Empire Strikes Back didn�t?
Because the Star Wars films aren't actually very good really? Without them there wouldn't be _Alien_ and _Blade Runner_, so they are important in getting the genre noticed. But they really aren't very good films. And the new additions are just atrocious rubbish. Well, the first one was anyway. I couldn't be bothered seeing the next one.
LOTR also had 3 cracks at the academy. FOTR was possibly the best of the 3 films, but was under-recognized. As I said above, I think ROTK's success is a recognition of a 3 films
Even mighty Star Trek is, at best, fondly indulged as a sort of beloved childhood plaything instead of truly welcomed into full adult status.
LOL! Star Trek cannot be taken seriously. The whole franchise is insular, circumscribed and utterly lost up its own mythology. And it has rubber-headed aliens with silly names each week.
Yeah, the Trek movie franchise hasn't done much to earn serious Hollywood respect, with the series being such a mixed bag, quality-wise.
But let�s say someone had the vision and guts to bring Titan to the big screen with all the vitality and spirit that Peter Jackson had in realizing Tolkien�s works. Would it have a chance of succeeding even half as well? Or a quarter?
Probably not.
Varley's Titan, or the Stephen Baxter's? (I haven't read Baxter's)
In any case, I'd say probably not, also. Neither has anything close to the rabid fan base of LOTR, and neither has the same level of critical respect as literature.
What I am asking is, did the phenomenal success of LOTR presage a sea change in the way fantasy is perceived by the general public (including the critics),
Yes.
To some degree. As soon as the next fantasy movie come out that doesn't
do that well, the critics that only gave grudging respect to LOTR will be quick
to proclaim that proves that LOTR was a unique situation.
or was it a one-off, difficult if not impossible to repeat, even by the finest in filmed art?
And also yes :)
They now know that fantasy *can* be good, but seldom is. Remember Sturgeon's Law.
I agree.
There have been genre booms in the past-almost inevitably, to be followed by �mass extinctions.� This is not to say that fantasy will disappear-but will it be permitted to stay up late with the grownups, or will it be sent to bed early and leave the adults to their more sophisticated conversation? Lord of the Rings has broken through, gloriously, and well-deserved. Will anyone else be allowed to follow, or did the hopes of fantasy fans for the respect we think we have earned melt away with the demise of the One Ring?
I think each project will have to be judged on its own merits. Many of them will be dreadful, some of them will be quite good, and with luck some might be excellent.
Has the ground been broken enough for, say, a modern E.T equivalent to win Best Picture? Maybe, but I tend to be pessimistic. I don't think the academy voters *like* fantasy/sf all that much in general, and if the genre is a turnoff, recognition is less likely, unless it is practically undeniable.
LOTR has raised the bar. Now if someone makes a crap genre movie they can't blame it on the genre.
Well, I think some will try to, anyway!
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to help protect your privacy and prevent fraud online at Tech Hacks & Scams. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/techsafety.armx
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
