CinemaDome: CtB vs LotR:FotR

For many, a viewing of the LotR trilogy around this time of the year is a tradition, and Fellowship is generally perceived as the best of the three. The Barbarian is the only good Conan flick. Either way, classic fantasy literature is adapted for the big screen and the two giants lock horns in CinemaDome.



vs

First off, the Conan poster is a giant dick pic. That is appropriate enough, I suppose, as Conan the Barbarian has it has balls a fuckton bigger than Fellowship.

Conan. I'd vote for it twice if I could.

The best thing about FotR? Hobbiton scenes. They make me quite happy. Jackson did an excellent job at showing you the same qualities that gandalf sees in the diminutive folk, so that he breaks with the oath of non-interference the istarii have and attempts to save middle earth from the continuing influence of Melkor's song in the Ainulindalé by pushing the denizens of Arda to rise above and shine with the flame of Iluvatar.

The best thing about CtB? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Vote: Conan

I did watch Conan, Destroyer and Red Sonja fairly recently (because in my mind, that is the Conan trilogy) and the first is certainly the best. It's iconic in a way that the LotR films never can be and the score is fantastic. When FotR came out I, as a long time fan of the books since I was nine years old, experienced both amazement at the feat, as well as that pointless chagrin about the changes from the source. Still, LotR was a trilogy that I sought out and imported the extended editions from the US (because the Elvish subtitles were player generated in European discs, not the theatrical ones), something I would never have bothered to do with the Conan movies.

However, the best LotR film by a country mile is The Two Towers, and that's not in this CinemaDome.

Conan the Barbarian

Colorcrayons wrote: The best thing about FotR? Hobbiton scenes. They make me quite happy. Jackson did an excellent job at showing you the same qualities that gandalf sees in the diminutive folk, so that he breaks with the oath of non-interference the istarii have and attempts to save middle earth from the continuing influence of Melkor's song in the Ainulindalé by pushing the denizens of Arda to rise above and shine with the flame of Iluvatar.

I'm not sure what all that says, but I too love the Hobbiton scenes. That damn 'Concerning Hobbits' jingle still fills me with joy and puts a tear in my eye every time.

Also, I too slightly prefer the Two Towers (if not for the horse and rider speech alone), but I thought most preferred Fellowship which is why I choose it. Did I err?

(also thought Unexpected Journey was the best Hobbit film and actually really good on its own. A favorite of mine.)

I've studied Tolkien to scholarly levels for quite sometime. The overarching theme and subtext is sublime in the entire body of his works, when viewed from the heights of the silamarillion as well as the height of a hobbit.

But Conan is still a better movie. Ironic given that Dino delaurentis is a purveyor of b grade schlock at the best of times.

Fellowship is the best simply because of Hobbiton. Two towers was great, but it lacks the day to day #firstworldproblems that egrarian hobbits deal with while eating, farting and making hobbit babies.

Naturally, I dig Conan the Barbarian and quite a bit of the REH stories, but in the end, or maybe as I've gotten older, I've come to prefer less the raging independence of sword and sorcery heroes for the more fellowship oriented characters. For fantasy cinema, I trace a line from Hawk the Slayer, to Excalibur, to Robin of Sherwood, to Lord of the Rings... I love all of these and hold them up as the best in fantasy. Maybe it's that British form of camaraderie and formative years of gaming in GW's Old World, I dunno.

Sword and Sorcery has the great Conan, but from there the quality within the genre drops off like a cliff. Krull, Beastmaster, Sword and the Sorcerer...eh...

Fellowship of the Ring. I had (and still have) never read the books so I wasn't saddled with focusing on what it isn't and simply adored it for what it is.

Well, now. This is more interesting.

On the one hand, you have Conan which was basically a mashup of the chronological first stories that L. Sprague de Camp and LIn Carter assembled (Tower of the Elephant, etc.) One of the essential facets of Conan as a character was Robert E. Howard using him as a metaphor about the the corruption inherent to the "civilized world" and how the the instinct-driven barbarian was an element of purity that would clean all of that up. John Milius and Oliver Stone didn't highlight that in their screenplay, but they kind of built around it with the vengeance angle and the "riddle of steel". The latter was a device that seemed to indicate that one lost touch with one's own humanity when one achieved power. The Cimmerian people understood steel as a tool that helped them survive, whereas Thulsa Doom (a stand-in for regular Conan foe, Thoth-Amon, in the books) used it as a means of acquiring wealth and power and then projected himself as the creator of all that he had accomplished; thus losing touch with his roots and the nature of life, from a Cimmerian perspective.

I think Howard's approach was kind of simplistic and very much driven by the American myth/philosophy of individualism, but there's no denying the comfort factor of a quasi-hero who lives by no rules but his own and, along the way, seems to be doing the "right" thing, too. I think the movie conveys a lot of that. Doom berates him for invading his house, killing his pets, and murdering his followers... and he's right! But from the way the story is shaped, Conan is the "good guy" because Doom is leading an evil cult. But the same could be said of almost any religion. What Conan is really doing is acting out a revenge story, not only for the king who hired him, but also for himself and those who object to this new form of faith. It's a story as old as time: the current powerholders (the king and whatever religion exists in that state) objecting to the new ones. Along the way, the riddle of steel is used as a framework, but it doesn't really mesh with Howard's original approach, since who's to say that the king that hired them isn't just as corrupt and has deviated from the pursuit of the riddle? Of course he is and has. That gives the story some underpinning of interest, but it also kind of loses the basic nature of what Howard wanted.

Furthermore, what really holds the film back, of course, are the performances. The three leads (Arnie, Gerry Lopez, Sandy Bergman) were a bodybuilder, surfer, and dancer, respectively, and hadn't done any real acting jobs except for a couple bit roles for Bergman. They're pretty bad and James Earl Jones chewing scenery in many of his shots didn't help. The pacing is kind of uneven and attempts to convey depth in parts that the actors simply can't carry. But it's a fun film in a lot of ways and Basil Polodouris' score is quite memorable. I always love the moment after Conan rescues Subotai from the witch and the traveling theme first plays as they lope across the steppe. That said, the entire production still comes off as just this side of a B-film. The sets and costuming give the sense that this is a simple adventure story... because that's what Howard's stories were! They were pulp fiction. He had some underlying philosophy attached but he really just wanted to tell some cool tales and he did. I still treasure my copies of Carter/de Camp's collections and I still enjoy watching Conan the Barbarian.

Fellowship, OTOH, is definitely the best of the LotR trilogy for one simple reason: it creates a sense of wonder that many of us have carried for Middle-Earth down through the decades and doesn't burden the actors with the weight of anything that has gone before. For the readers, it brings to life things like Bag End and Moria. For the non-readers, it shows off a rather spectacular world without any of the rather heavy Christian analogies that emerge in the later parts of the story. One of the key elements to the wonder that Middle-Earth creates in many readers is the concept of lore. If you take the ring at face value, it's a ring that shifts people into a shadow world and that's all. But the story talks about Sauron using the ring's power to build the Barad-dur and create an empire of darkness. The elves are equally empowered to do the same with their three rings. Tolkien doesn't dwell on that concept but it's really the same thing as faith, which forms the basis for much of the rest of the story (the Christ-like self-sacrifice of Frodo, the Christ-like resurrection of Gandalf, etc.) Belief in what the lore allows enables people to create great things with it. But you have to have the faith/understanding in that lore in order to use it in that way. Otherwise, it's just a janky ring of invisibility. Conveying that sense of power beyond our reach is what gives the story its magic, in a uniquely appropriate term, and it carries through in much of the books and definitely carries through in this film, which is what makes it the best of the three, IMO. Jackson's fairly light touch in delivering that story does nothing to hinder that. Gandalf riding the cart over the hill to see the congenial warmth of Hobbiton; the hobbits cowering under the tree while the palpable menace of the Ringwraith, sniffing the air like an animal, crouches above them; the majesty of the carved halls of Moria; all of these things resonate with wonder and emotion. It's a belief in the reality of this unreality; the time before our Age of Men.

What helps all of this along, of course, is a solid, if occasionally turgid, screenplay (just like the books!) and genuinely excellent performances, especially by Ian McKellen and Viggo Mortensen, and a score every bit as good as Conan's, by Howard Shore. The moment where they first step into the lower halls in Moria is a real highlight here, as the music perfectly matches the sense of wonder displayed by the actors, because they're as amazed as we are to see this ancient hall. Everything about Middle-Earth feels grounded and lived in, as opposed to the occasionally slapdash feel of Conan (certainly, the disparate size of their respective budgets is a factor here ($17.5 million for Conan; over $300 million for the whole LotR project.))

I really enjoy both films, but Fellowship of the Ring is the winner here.

JEM wrote: I did watch Conan, Destroyer and Red Sonja fairly recently (because in my mind, that is the Conan trilogy) and the first is certainly the best. It's iconic in a way that the LotR films never can be and the score is fantastic. When FotR came out I, as a long time fan of the books since I was nine years old, experienced both amazement at the feat, as well as that pointless chagrin about the changes from the source. Still, LotR was a trilogy that I sought out and imported the extended editions from the US (because the Elvish subtitles were player generated in European discs, not the theatrical ones), something I would never have bothered to do with the Conan movies.

However, the best LotR film by a country mile is The Two Towers, and that's not in this CinemaDome.

Conan the Barbarian

The big set piece action scenes are indeed impressive. But compared to FotR, Gimli's clown status and Legolas' Matrix like abilities ( skate boarding down the stairs of fucking Helms Deep ) were signs that Jackson was starting to get high on his own success. I still prefer FotR for that as well as being blown away by it; TTT you were already somewhat prepared for how impressive it would be .

As for this battle, FotR.

This is damned hard. Conan was the best fantasy film of all time, hands down, till FotR came out. It doesn't really strike me as a Conan movie... he's out for revenge and not 'wanderlust' and it changes all his motivation. It makes him a very different character. Still... it's the closest we have and it's still kind of like Conan. I love the film (although the other two blow) and it still holds up today. The movie is quotable, action packed, the narrative is filled with all sorts of cool story points from when he's a kid to the wheel of death to the witch in the forest to his times as a gladiator to the final scene at James Earl Jones lair. There's a lot to like in that movie.

FotR is no slouch either. There's a lot of story there as well and I'd argue that the acting is much better. It's a slicker production by far. It totally came out of left field for me too. I wasn't sure what to expect when I heard Peter Jackson was doing them... that guy from Meet the Feebles, the guy who did Dead Alive... really? It seemed a weird fit to me. He did cheesy horror send ups and other than that all he had was Heavenly Creature and none of that said LotR to me. But then when I saw it I couldn't imagine it any other way. I wasn't happy with how the Dwarf was treated but otherwise it was almost perfect. Ian McKellen was phenomenal, as he always is in these types of things. The best wizard ever on screen and the best comic book villain ever on screen. He's awesome for that stuff. I walked out of that theater, a man who doesn't care for Tolkien that much, absolutely loving that film. I found the books to be messy and pretentious. I think Tolkien reached beyond his grasp. I enjoyed them ok as a kid but could never really get into them after that. The story was good and I stand by them as a great early example of world building and a tribute to the imagination but his prose never struck me enough to really get into it. Jackson's version cleans all that up, it nails what's good about the stories and leaves the chaff on the floor. I think it's a more fully realized version of the stories.

Whereas Conan feels weaker on film. I love that movie but it does not get to the heart of what Conan is about. At times it doesn't even feel like the same character. It's a weird mix, it's like Jackson nailed the book and improved it and De Laurentiis ran loose with a rough outline taken from the stories and still made it work. There's no doubt to me that Tolkien is a better writer than Howard... but Howard has charms that Tolkien will never understand. He can tell a simple story, he's to the point, and he doesn't waste time worrying about minor details that the audience simply doesn't need. Howards writing is fun and Tolkien's simply isn't. It's like a warm fireplace. Comfy... but a little dry. Howard's is like a storm. Messy, but goddamn captivating.

In film form they both seem to take chances. Neither film screams public success yet both achieved it. This is one of the few times I don't much care who wins. They are both fantastic films yet they both come from very different places. Conan has stuff in it that is shocking still today.. when he calls those girls sluts, when he punches that Camel, when the throws that Witch in the fire mid intercourse. All weird moments. LotR plays it much safer and in many ways despite being a terrifying movie for kids is still ok for them to see. Conan is clearly an adult movie. But it works in both cases.

I'm going to go with Conan simply because I don't think we're going to see a film like that again. That kind of early 80's excess thrown on a big screen with very adult material. They just don't make those anymore... I could see another hit following in LotR's footsteps but I don't see someone doing a movie like Conan again. It's almost more impressive that it works despite not following the shorts. LotR has a clear story to follow and it does so. It cuts some stuff but the bones are all in place. Conan builds a new skeleton using mostly the same bones but switches out some important parts here and there and still works some how. I think it's a rarer bird but this is the closest it's ever been for me in a cinemadome.

Vote: Conan... barely.

PS: My second son is named Conan and maybe a year after he was born his mother in law called up to say that she had seen a movie on TV called Conan last night. She wanted to let us know to "never watch that film. It's horrible, it's disgusting, please don't let the children see it"... if that isn't a glowing recommendation I simply don't know what is... also my avatar here used to be a drawing by Cary Nord of Conan chopping my head off. So I fully admit some bias in this one.

What is this new devilry?! This has to be FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING all the way. It's the very best of the trilogy.

The Nazgul terrified me when I saw it in theatres with my sister, mom and stepdad around xmas 2001(?). On the East Road, in Bree and especially on Weathertop. I was scared out of my mind. I also cried a bunch at the fall of Gandalf the Grey. That was pretty emotional with a great assist from the beautiful score. A movie that made me feel fear, feel sadness, laugh and all the while an amazing sense of child-like bewilderment at Middle Earth. How amazing were the Mines of Moria? So beautiful. how awesome was the talk between Frodo and Gandalf on the steps in Moria, "so do all who live these times, but that is not for us to decide.."

i love that film and the franchise so spoke to me that I got into years of playing the CCG based on the movies simply because of the quality of that first film. On a ski trip in Austria, flying to London and opening my first booster box and unwrapping Lurtz and the Cave Troll of Moria... wow... child-like bewilderment.

Love that movie.

Black Barney wrote: What is this new devilry?!

Max Vonmotherfucking Sydow. That's what.

Wow. There are some fantastic rationales for voting. Great reading!
I'll vote Conan for 22 reasons:
The number of french horns used in the CTB score.
Howard's FOTR score is great, but the Poledouris score is perfect.

The answer to the riddle of steel?

CONAN