2000's Finals- 1) LOTR: The Return of the King vs. 3) Gladiator

[Papa Shango]

The Wrestlezone Movie Tournament, 2000's Bracket Finals

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

vs.

Gladiator

As a reminder, there will be NO voting polls this round. In order to vote, you must leave a NON-SPAM post, with your vote in bold, and your reason for voting for that movie. Voting will be open until Friday, when the threads will be closed and the votes given a final tally.

 

[supersayian]

OK both of these movies were great action films. My vote here goes to Lord Of The Rings why you ask. well one Return of the King is far more difficult to make. won all 11 Oscars. the only movie ever to do so. also the actors all deliver there parts to the top of ability. these guys put a movie that is fake in all reality. the battles were far more intense. not all endings were happy. this movie shows that put to the test. heroes did not all survive. but new ones were made. this movie was done in the mountains people in New Zealand. one of the most amazing countries around. the art directing is superb. this is just a classic. i dont know why this decade is the worst. if you ask me it is the best. it took movies to a new level of ways with computers and on screen action. so much goes on at once. how does this movie suck. i have not heard a valid argument against it yet. other then it sucked. wheres your proof people. i have not and may not ever here that proof. so i say finally prove me wrong.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I don't think there is much of an argument here, for why Gladiator should go over Return of the King. The acting was superb in ROTK. Every actor, major and minor, played his/her part perfectly. I can't think of a thing I would change about anyone's preformance.

The fight scenes were beast. Can you imagine how much went into those? It must have taken forever to get those down.

The special effects were the best I've seen. If anyone can think of better, please let me know.

It won how many Oscars exactly? Mmhm.



I dunno. I could go into detail further, but I don't think it's needed. Return of the King is far superior to Gladiator in every way.

I vote for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

Bear in mind, everyone...just because something wins an Oscar doesn't mean it deserved it, nor does it mean that the Academy themselves is the word of God when it comes to movies. Politics are involved in it as well. Granted, they're not setting up huge conspiracies and such (well if they did we wouldn't know about them anyway, right? lol) but some things get voted due to peer mentality or pressure.

That being said, I've gone on record in previous threads saying that both of these films in my mind were huge letdowns. Neither of them felt like they were worth my 8 bucks (20+ for ROTK as my girlfriend at the time wanted to see it and dragged me to a 2nd showing).

So let's see here:

ACTING = Truthfully, I can't remember anything in terms of performance in Gladiator that made me think it was even nomination-worthy, but at the same time, I think the acting in the LOTR films is better than average, but not great either. Neither film has anybody in it that I think would be in contention of an Oscar. Now, I could be wrong about Gladiator, as its been longer since I've seen that, but I've never particularly been a fan of Crowe's acting and I haven't seen Phoenix in anything that has had him stand out in my mind. So really, its a tie to me here.

STORY = See, this is tough, because if you took Return of the King as a solitary film, the story is garbage. But obviously its not meant to be seen without having viewed the previous two installments. As a whole, the Lord of the Rings trilogy trumps the story of Gladiator, but if you were just seeing ROTK for the first time and that was your jumping on moment, you hadn't seen the other 2 films, you'd probably go for Gladiator. But Gladiator is, essentially, simple in comparison. So I'd have to go with ROTK.

VISUAL/SPECIAL EFFECTS = Clearly ROTK wins that, as Gladiator was nothing special at all.

SCORE = Gladiator, hands down. The Lord of the Rings films had a few solid motifs (though I find I can't listen to them on their own) while Gladiator's main theme alone is another great Hans Zimmer work. Guy's a genius. I can't remember any song from ROTK that I could sit and listen to outside of its own film.

DIRECTING = For plowing through 3 long and complex films, Jackson has the edge.


Which leaves me with a hope that it will be knocked out in the next round, but my vote is going for...

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Damn. two awesome movies, ones I like so much they very nearly were deemed good enough to be part of the ultra exclusive "Movies that NorCal owns" collection. I digress.

Personally, I go with Gladiator, just becuase I like everything and aspect of Gladiator more than I do ROTK. Although Gladiator lacks a big ass spider scene, which is huge. I enjoy the fall and re-ascension of Maximus, I like the characters in gladiator more, the score of gladiator is better, and gets the vast majority of the story across without mass amounts of CG (save for the coliseum) and super duper monsters. Gladiator

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I am not fan of any of the Lord of the Rings films, at all. I found all to be dull and boring but I can realize that it is a very well made film from the direction, to the editing, and the special effects. One thing that to me Lord of the Rings lacked was strong acting. Everyone was good and effective but nothing really stood out to me. Gladiator on the other hand I have watch several times and was entertained by it. The movie does have it's flaws but overall is very solid and both Crowe & Pheonix give amazing performances.
I just liked Gladiator more so that's why I'm voting for it, even know both films in the context of movie making are solid.

And meh, I'm bored so I'm going to do a comparisons on how the films stack up.

LOTR: Return of the King
11 Academy Award Nominations(Won all 11, including Picture & Directing tied with Titanic & Ben Hur for the most Oscar wins)
Made 1.2 Billion dollars world wide
94% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatos(reviews from film critics & fans alike)
Missed the cut off for the American Film Institute Top 100 movies ever

Gladiator:
Nominated for 12 Academy Awards(won 5 including picture & actor)
Made over 457 Million world wide
77% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatos(reviews from film critics & fans alike)
Did not finish top 100 for the American Film Institute Top 100 movies ever

 

[Tim]

I didn't like the LOTR series. I just found the movies boring and too long, but I do understand why people would like it and I understand that is a very well made film. Its just not my type of film. The plot didn't enthrall me, and to me the movie seemed to be lacking an outstanding performance. However, I really liked the plot in Gladiator. This line summarises the plot perfectly: "A general who became a slave. A slave who became a gladiator. A gladiator who defied an emperor."

I thought that Russel Crowe's performance was outstanding, and the film had the right balance of fight scenes and emotional scenes. They didn't need many special effects to make the film great, and most of the scenes in ROTK used special effects. Gladiator has the right balance of everything a movie needs, which makes it a great movie, and better than ROTK.

Gladiator

 

[Mr. TM]

Gladiator is my choice here. I think that is all of the Lord of the Rings movies were put together, they would rival Gladiator, but with it just being Return of the Kings, Gladiator prevails. I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan, I have read the books twice, Seen The Fellowship of the Rings 50ish times, Two Towers over a dozen times, but have only ever watched Return of the King straight through twice. In fact, I have only ever turned it on four times, and the last two times, once by itself, I couldn't watch it, and then when I trued to sit through them all in a weekend, I loved watching FOTR, got a little bored during TT, and stopped watching ROTK just after the boring battle that Rohan has against Saurons army.

Gladiator on the other hand, every time I watch it... I should clarify watching it, because I just just sit down half way through, I make a plan to watch it. I set the atmosphere, I sit down, and I don't move for almost 3 hours. Someone asks me a good example of an Epic movie, I say Gladiator. From the beginning battle, to the death of the Emperor, to the scene where he finds his family massacred, to ... wel you all know. Up to the Colloseum, where the Gladiator stands after defeating the Emperor, and gives Rome back to the people. It is magic, and I really hope it goes over.

 

[Mr. TM]

I don't think there is much of an argument here, for why Gladiator should go over Return of the King. The acting was superb in ROTK. Every actor, major and minor, played his/her part perfectly. I can't think of a thing I would change about anyone's preformance.

There is little argument the other way in my opinion. The Return of the King was a major let down. The Fellowship was like meeting the hottest woman ever, The Two Towers was that finding out that she was horny and into you, and the Return of the King was when you got into bed, she was covered in boils. It was the worst climax in film history of a trilogy (A trilogy in the sense that a story has been broken into three). Now to get onto the acting. Who was more beliving? Gladiator of Frodo? Elijah Wood was terrible, and did not have me captured. Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen shouldn't have had a career after their piss poor acting. The acting was horrid in my opinion. And for my final blow there, can you really compare any single acting performance in Lord of the Rings to Phoenix's in Gladiator?

The fight scenes were beast. Can you imagine how much went into those? It must have taken forever to get those down.

You mean the fight scene that ended when green mist killed everything?

The special effects were the best I've seen. If anyone can think of better, please let me know.

Gladiator. Colosseum.

It won how many Oscars exactly? Mmhm.

They had to give it some because they fucked up on the first and second films. The Academy is a piss poor institute, the reward hype.

I dunno. I could go into detail further, but I don't think it's needed. Return of the King is far superior to Gladiator in every way.

Seems like you have not watched Gladiator.

 

[Mr. TM]

Bear in mind, everyone...just because something wins an Oscar doesn't mean it deserved it, nor does it mean that the Academy themselves is the word of God when it comes to movies. Politics are involved in it as well. Granted, they're not setting up huge conspiracies and such (well if they did we wouldn't know about them anyway, right? lol) but some things get voted due to peer mentality or pressure.

If it was involved, Ben-Hur and Titanic would be the best movies ever. The Academy rewards hype and dollars.

That being said, I've gone on record in previous threads saying that both of these films in my mind were huge letdowns. Neither of them felt like they were worth my 8 bucks (20+ for ROTK as my girlfriend at the time wanted to see it and dragged me to a 2nd showing).

And they wonder why movies get pirated...

ACTING = Truthfully, I can't remember anything in terms of performance in Gladiator that made me think it was even nomination-worthy, but at the same time, I think the acting in the LOTR films is better than average, but not great either. Neither film has anybody in it that I think would be in contention of an Oscar. Now, I could be wrong about Gladiator, as its been longer since I've seen that, but I've never particularly been a fan of Crowe's acting and I haven't seen Phoenix in anything that has had him stand out in my mind. So really, its a tie to me here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkN8Yx7p9H8[/youtube]

Crowe put in his best effort ever as an actor. Phoenix was spot on here, he played the snake of an emperor that he is. Spencer Treat Clark puts in the best acting performance of a child only compared to Osmond in The Sixth Sense. Acting is obviously dominating in Gladiator.

STORY = See, this is tough, because if you took Return of the King as a solitary film, the story is garbage. But obviously its not meant to be seen without having viewed the previous two installments. As a whole, the Lord of the Rings trilogy trumps the story of Gladiator, but if you were just seeing ROTK for the first time and that was your jumping on moment, you hadn't seen the other 2 films, you'd probably go for Gladiator. But Gladiator is, essentially, simple in comparison. So I'd have to go with ROTK.

Gladiator has a classic storyline. Man is happy, something happens to take away the happiness, man becomes Gladiator and kills Emperor. Gladiator has to go over in storyline, Return of the King is NOT watchable on its own, unlike Gladiator, or even the Fellowship of the Rings.

VISUAL/SPECIAL EFFECTS = Clearly ROTK wins that, as Gladiator was nothing special at all.

Rewatch Gladiator. Look at ...yes I say it a lot, the Colosseum. The fields of Gold. The beauty and the ugly of the Roman Empire of 2000 years ago, today.

SCORE = Gladiator, hands down. The Lord of the Rings films had a few solid motifs (though I find I can't listen to them on their own) while Gladiator's main theme alone is another great Hans Zimmer work. Guy's a genius. I can't remember any song from ROTK that I could sit and listen to outside of its own film.

Great point, I was actually just listening to some of Gladiators music yesterday. It was top notch. It went with the film. It created the atmosphere.

DIRECTING = For plowing through 3 long and complex films, Jackson has the edge.

Jackson was good, but it seemed less organized by the third film, the one we are voting on. Ridley Scott is incredible here, probably his best film ever.

Which leaves me with a hope that it will be knocked out in the next round, but my vote is going for...

I'll one up that, and hope for it to be knocked out now.

 

[jmt225]

I've sat through The Return of the King one time. At the time I thought I enjoyed it, but just like the other Lord of the Rings movies, I never watched it again afterwards. So, I guess in hindsight, I must've not really dug the film.

Gladiator, however, is a completely different story. I expected to hate it going into it, but ended up loving it. I've seen it perhaps 10-15 times and I have yet to get sick of it. It is just an awesome film. Well acted, written, and directed... it deserved every award it got and all the praised it has received since its release.

I despise Russell Crowe with a passion, but I can't deny how great he was in this film. But who really did the job carrying this wonderful piece of art was Joaquin Phoenix. His performance as Commodus was beyond epic. One of the greatest acting performances I've personally ever seen. Probably would end up on my top ten list, were I to make one. He was unbelievable. In fact, his performance alone deserves to beat out Return if you ask me.

Gladiator

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

There is no way Lord of the Rings is about to lose to Gladiator..

How can anyone argue that it was a better film than Return of the King?

It's not.

The acting is average.

The story is simple.

The special effects are meh.

The directing is nothing special.

Will people remember Gladiator in 15 years? No.

 

[Tim]

There is no way Lord of the Rings is about to lose to Gladiator..

How can anyone argue that it was a better film than Return of the King?

It's not.

Yes it is. Return of the King was hugely overhyped imo, and it let down a lot when it was shown in cinemas. Gladiator was a much better film.

The acting is average.

Give me one example. Russel Crowe was outstanding, as was Joaquin Phoenix. The acting was really great, and these two shone in the movie.

The story is simple.

Since when do you need a complex story to make a movie great? if it was a successful and great film, why does it need a complex story? This point is just stupid and very ignorant.

The special effects are meh.

Colosseum. Academy Award for Best Visual Effects. And anyway, like the previous point, you don't need special effects to make a great movie. Most scenes in ROTK were special effects, but that didn't make it a good movie.

The directing is nothing special.

You're joking right. That was funny. Wait he's being serious. I think he's being serious. Oh my god.

You are crazy. He revived the sword and sandal genre of films. This has even been called the Gladiator effect, and has led to films such as Kingdom of Heaven. This is one of Ridley Scott's finest works.

Will people remember Gladiator in 15 years? No.

That's a bold statement to make, and very ignorant. You can't say that Gladiator won't be remembered, it is a great film and people will still watch it in years to come. I'm not going to say people won't remember ROTK, because that would be stupid, but you're underestimating Gladiator, and you obviously aren't a fan of it Gladiator is one of the best films, if not the best film, of the 2000s, and is certainly better than ROTK. Also, try and elaborate on your points a bit further next time.

 

[klunderbunker]

Gladiator. LOTR is a series, and if you haven't seen the first two, this movie is just confusing. Granted it was already confusing. Gladiator is just cool. The fighting is awesome, there are quotable lines throughout, and the whole thing just works. Russell Crowe is perfect as Maximus. While it'll get bitch slapped by whoever it faces in the next round, Gladiator takes this in a walk for me.

 

[Papa Shango]

Gladiator.

LOTR: The Return of the King

LOTR is a series, and if you haven't seen the first two, this movie is just confusing.

The only way you know that is if you saw Return without seeing the first two. But I don't think you did. My dad, however, went with me and my sister to see it, and he knew very very little about the series. And he loved it. He thought it was phenomenal.

Granted it was already confusing.

Why is it confusing? It's actually quite simple. Frodo needs to destroy the ring in order to defeat evil.

Gladiator is just cool. The fighting is awesome, there are quotable lines throughout, and the whole thing just works.

The same exact argument can made for LOTR.

Russell Crowe is perfect as Maximus.

I actually thought that his performance was overrated. Tom Hanks, Javier Bardem, and Geoffrey Rush, all gave performances that were more worthy of the Oscar. If you want to talk about the Academy honoring hype and dollars, then Gladiator is the movie to talk about.

Gladiator has many strengths, but almost as many flaws as well. Return of the King has no real flaws. The ending is maligned by some, but I think that's just the opinion of those who prefer instant gratification in the end. Such an epic cannot end the way a Lethal Weapon film would. There must be an epilogue. The screenplay adaptation is faithful, yet makes changes where necessary. the direction is wonderful, the performances are strong (people can say what they will about Elijah Wood, but he stayed true to the character). The effects are breathtaking and groundbreaking, and the score is absolutely beautiful. It won 11 Academy Awards, tied for the most ever, with Ben Hur and Titanic, and holds the record for biggest Oscars sweep, winning in every category for which it was nominated. Return of the King is the second all-time highest grossing film in the world, and because of it's success, has made the LOTR franchise the most lucrative and highest-grossing ever, beating out both the Star Wars trilogies.

There really isn't another movie that can compare. No one movie this decade has been more culturally, historically, or aesthetically relevant.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

Both have a place in Cinematic history for sure. I just dont like Lord Of the Rings at all. Gladiator was much more fast paced and entertaining to watch. Lord Of The Rings was breathtaking for sure. It's just that besides that I didnt find it to be very entertaining whatsoever. Lord Of The Rings will be a classic movie. I just hated it.

My vote goes to Gladiator.

 

[Shocky]

Everyone using the argument that Russel Crowe was perfect as Maximus, that's fine, but Return of the King, along with the entire series, was about as perfectly cast as it could get. From Viggo Mortensens Aragorn, to Christopher Lee as Saruman, Ian McKellan as Gandolf, Rudy as Samwise, the list goes on and on. The cast of Lord of the Rigns was phenomenal.

I like Gladiator, I really do, but there is a ton of hate on Lord of the Rings that I don't understand. To adapt taht book, something that had been around popculture for the better part of a half a century, and be as successful as it was, speaks volumes. You can't compare special effects, because honestly, Lord of the Rings has very few equals.

Return of the King nicely put an end to the trilogy. While I don't think they are the greatest movies ever, they are a truly great film series that anyone that likes films should watch. Return of the King does somethign that the third movies of most trilogies should do, take teh established characters you have, and continue to grow them, and ultimately, come to the conclusion. Return of the King does this masterfully. Character growth int his movie is unmatched in my opinion. Aragorn finally leaves the Ranger behind to become the leader of man. Gandolf becomes the General, instead of wise watcher. Sam, that characters growth is amazing. From naive farmhand to full fledged brave warrior. when Sam picks frodo up on Mount Doom and bust out the line "I may not be able to carry it, but I can carry you", that sends chills through me. That close to the end, and running on adrenaline, you can connect with that.

Not to mention the pure ownage of Andy Serkus and the robbery of him not getting nominated for best supporting actor because it was a CG character.

So far and away, Return of the King gets my vote.