CinemaDome: CtB vs LotR:FotR

The flight from Moria by itself is better than the whole of fucking Conan. Or any number of scenes. Though Conan has grown on me over the years it's missing that special something to elevate it to greatness. Maybe a lack of tension or emotional weight. I still consider it a classic but LotR is legendary. No other fantasy film comes remotely close and judging by the shitty porridge that's come before (and after) over the years I don't think there will be competition any time soon.

Vote: SARUMAN & Friends

Conan tells a complete story. Fellowship only tells 1/3 of a story. So film to film I have to go with the former. But as a whole I like the Rings trilogy more.

Vote: Conan

Seriously? LOTR as a whole is THE pinnacle achievement of fantasy film. It is the ONLY fantasy film that has been so complete, so successful, and so widely accepted by the mainstream. It is a Great Film, a monumental achievement across the filmmaking board, and it is simply unmatched in its vision, scope and ambition.

Then there's Conan The Barbarian.

I love it, don't get me wrong...but it is a pretty crap movie overall. The only things that elevate over other fun-but-crap 80s S&S fare like Krull, Beastmaster, Sword and the Sorcerer, Hawk the Slayer, etc. is Schwarzeneggar's almost comically oafish performance and the relative fidelity to the source material.

This is almost like comparing Lawrence of Arabia to Ishtar:

Fellowship!

Tolkien's The Hobbit is the first book I purchased with my own money as a child after I had just watched the 1977 animated film. Following it, I read my first real fantasy novels: the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I do love the Lord of the Rings movies--they're brilliant. Despite this, I've never wanted to be any of the characters from those movies. Deep down inside, I think that everyone wants to be Conan the Barbarian and so did I after seeing the Conan movie. It has a primal appeal. Vote: CONAN.

You've got a point, Stoic. I do want to be Conan sometimes. In particular when dealing with some situations involving kids, wife, job. But I am also conscious that if I was Conan, I wouldn't have any of those. All of the characters from the Fellowship (maybe except from Legolas and Gimli) resonate with me somewhat. I think that as much as Conan is your average uber-male-power-fantasy, we would rather be Aragorns and Gandalfs, all the while conscious that we're not even on the level of Merricks and Pippins.

Man, in either of those worlds I would never have made it out of my teenage years. I'd have been dead long ago.

But if I had to choose I'd be Gandalf in a second other than the fact that I'm not cool enough to lick his boots after he walked through a pig pen. Conan is a great choice too though.

Just a reminder of the lack of camel punching in the LotR trilogy.

Not just punching, isn't there also a dude loving a camel in Conan?

Vlad wrote: You've got a point, Stoic. I do want to be Conan sometimes. In particular when dealing with some situations involving kids, wife, job. But I am also conscious that if I was Conan, I wouldn't have any of those. All of the characters from the Fellowship (maybe except from Legolas and Gimli) resonate with me somewhat. I think that as much as Conan is your average uber-male-power-fantasy, we would rather be Aragorns and Gandalfs, all the while conscious that we're not even on the level of Merricks and Pippins.

Vlad, checkout this extremely detailed discussion concerning why Gandalf isn't a hero and laudable persona in the link below. But more importantly, in my opinion, the only true selfless hero and worthwhile character in the Lord of the Rings story and the only one who acted without the desire for self-interest, glory or gain is Samwise Gamgee--he's the only true hero, albeit overlooked, in the Lord of the Rings.

asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/134...i-dont-like-gandalf/

I've long felt Conan is an underrated film generally. It has the best quote in the whole of film history, for starters. But mostly it's the whole avant garde, epic visual and audio feel of the thing, almost like a cinematography graduate's showreel set to a music school graduate's score. The loincloth, rubber snake, oiled muscles thing makes it pretty poor as fantasy but as a piece of art, it's pretty good.

On the other hand Fellowship is the pinnacle of fantasy on celluloid. It may not have the clumsy, cultish charm of Conan but in every other respect it's better. CGI makes it visually better and, I would say, the mixed score makes it aurally better. And the fact it's the first of a trilogy knocks Conan's sense of epic out of the park. Plus it's got all the important stuff that Conan doesn't like, y'know, a plot and characters and some real excitement.

Vote: Fellowship of the Ring. No contest.

stoic wrote: But more importantly, in my opinion, the only true selfless hero and worthwhile character in the Lord of the Rings story and the only one who acted without the desire for self-interest, glory or gain is Samwise Gamgee

Yes, and just like Conan, Sam is not the brightest tool in the shed, so to speak.

Seriously though, I don't understand why self-interest, glory or gain would disqualify one to be a hero. In fact, that's called motivation. You could also argue that Sam is in love with Frodo (which he obviously is), so there is some self-interest there.
I can't discuss book Gandalf, because I haven't read the books in awhile, but every time I am watching the movies, I have a nagging suspicion that Gandalf is exaggerating his adventures, as any crazy old man would. Like, the most spectacular stuff happens to him when there's no one there to witness it. And he's definitely a master manipulator. Which is why I like him and want to be like him when I am 500 years old. Nobody is flawless in LoTR, but for all their flaws, most characters make the right choices, which makes them noble. My favorite is Theoden, actually. He's a flawed human being, and not a very good king: lots of bad decisions that lead to many deaths and he's also kind of a downer - in public (cardinal sin for any leader, imho). But he is trying hard to do the right thing, and dies trying.

Theoden is my favourite character too! His speech in ROTK is the highlight of the entire trilogy, for me.

"Pinnacle of fantasy on celluloid"? "Masterpiece filmmaking"? You people have lost your minds.

I LOVE Lord of the Rings. I've seen all of the extended editions more times than I'd like to admit, and even multiple times in the theater. But they aren't masterful films. Jackson can't stop moving the camera, conveys emotion through soft focus, and over-extends every action scene. Some of the CGI looks great, some looks badly dated already. The movies take me to a warm, happy place and I enjoy them immensely, but they aren't great art.

Conan is not masterful filmmaking either, but it is a solid film that looks as good today as it did back then (insert your own snark here). It's self-contained. It takes you into its world, introduced characters, has a nice little plot, and ends satisfactorily. Adventure, action, humor, and pathos. What more could you want from 2 hours of movie?

If we were comparing trilogies, LotR would stand tall against many. As a stand-alone film, I gotta stay with Conan.

We're getting some weird results in CinemaDome. Do the voters here skew old? Or is there some other reason why some folks are grading old movies on a curve?