should the LotR movies be made?

[andros]

I'd love to see opinions. Should Peter Jackson be filming the live-action Lord of the Rings trilogy? Or is it a travesty against all that is right and good in the universe?

Some info can be found at the Internet Movie Database www.imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com)
The official LotR site can be found at www.lotr.com (http://www.lotr.com)

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[Glitch]

In my view, there is never anything wrong with another good movie. They could remake anything, if it done well and is refreshing and enjoyable to watch I am all for it. The question is, will it be a good movie(s)or not?

------------------
It's bernard, just under new management

[dramatoig]

My worry (more than a problem) is that, if the movie isn't _real_ good, I'm going to just be horribly dissapointed with it (I believe that Star Wars mavens have already experienced this emotion this summer....)

In more more objective and dispassionate moments, I think that I will have to learn to apply the general principle that they, like all adaptations, are different things, and not to expect the same experience I got from the novel the first fifteen times or so I read it from the movie.

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

[andros]

I guess I'm thinking mostly of Dune. Amazing and very valuable work of fiction, IMO all but destroyed by a mediocre (if not downright BAD) movie adaptation.

CAN a live-action LotR be good enough to contribute to the books? I don't think it can.

Hell, I was even disappointed in Bakshi's animated version. And it was reeeally good.

You're right, tho, Dramatoig. It should be looked upon as a different experience. But if it's a different experience that detracts from the original it should NOT be filmed at all. Again, IMNSHO.
-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

I'm just wondering how many shots of people crossing desolate country there will be. I mean, the Lord of the Rings has a LOT of travelling in it, and that can get old fast in a movie. There's only so many times I want to see a group of people walking across a field, you know? So they'll have to add a lot of action and dialogue to it that the books don't have, IMHO. (I could be wrong--it's been a long time since I re-read the LOTR, but the way I remember it, there was a lot of walking.)

[jazzmine]

ummm, I don't think www.lotr.com (http://www.lotr.com) is the official site. Or even remotely related.

[jazzmine]

There's a www.lordoftherings.net (http://www.lordoftherings.net) Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

[andros]

Thanks, Trisha. You are absolutely correct. Mea maxima culpa.

Again, the official website for the Lord of the Rings films is:
www.lordoftherings.net (http://www.lordoftherings.net)

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[pldennison]

I think if anyone is up to the task, Peter Jackson is. In his so-far brief career, he has produced a couple of amazingly gory yet imaginative and funny horror films ("Bad Taste," "Dead Alive"), a true-crime movie with a lot of fantasy elements and amazing depth ("Heavenly Creatures"), a splattery puppet movie("Meet the Feebles") and a Hollywood action-horror thriller ("The Frighteners"). I'm a huge fan of his--he has amazing imagination, a good command of the camera, and can handle fantasy and horror quite well. I look forward to the movies.

[Glitch]

I guess I'm thinking mostly of Dune. Amazing and very valuable work of fiction, IMO all but destroyed by a mediocre (if not downright BAD) movie adaptation.

How exactly did a bad movie "destroy" the piece of literature? I know quite a few people who read the books because they saw the movie, including myself. I have yet to met a single person (other than yourself) who has claimed that they no longer like the books because of the movie (this in essence what you seem to be saying).

CAN a live-action LotR be good enough to contribute to the books? I don't think it can.

Why does it have to contribute to the books? In fact, why should it even try? It is simply a rendition that will be enjoyable or not enjoyable in it's own right. As with Dune, if anything this will get people to go and read the books if it is in fact done well.

But if it's a different experience that detracts from the original it should NOT be filmed at all.

Again, how exactly does a movie "detract" from the original? I am not sure how this follows. If you see the movie and hate it how exactly will that make you like the books less? Maybe I am just dumb, but me no understand.

------------------
It's bernard, just under new management

[furt]

As a big LotR fan, I'm excited they're going to try; if it sucks, it won't spoil the book for ME. In fact, I'd say there's no way ANY movie can top a really great book like Lord.

But then again, I've been put off reading Dune by the movie.

On the third hand, most people who see the movie and don't like it probably weren't going to read it anyway; whereas some people wh DO like it will, along with people--kids--who (gasp!) never heard of it before, and those who keep hearing "not as good as the book" in conversations. So I don't see how a movie, however bad, would do anything but increase readership.

I'm out of the states and too lazy to dig so: Are we looking at one movie or three? Tell me they'rer not going to give this less than seven hours.

------------------
"It all started with marbles in school..."

[DSYoungEsq]

They're taking out Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Who's going to rescue the hobbits from the barrow, then? IIRC, it was Tom that did that, wasn't it?
Tom Bombadil rescues the hobbits twice, first rescuing Merry and Pippen from the clutches of Old Man Willow, then rescuing the whole foursome from the barrow-wight.

Over the years, critics have always had trouble treating Tom Bombadil as anything other than an unnecessary interlude in the story. The character was someone Tolkein had played with for some time prior to writing LotR, and his inclusion was probably a foregone conclusion for that reason, if no other. But one has to ask: did he really advance the plot in any significant way? That is, does Frodo manage to obtain from Bombadil anything of lasting value in his quest to destroy the Ring?

Obviously, those who cut this interlude out of re-tellings feel he didn't. (sigh)

As for the movie concept itself, in light of the stunning special effects available and on display in the recent Star Wars film, clearly some sort of similar treatment would make the LotR quite an enjoyable movie. But it would take a LOT of computer work. Small budgets are NOT the way to manage it...

Nevertheless, I can't WAIT to see Goodgulf standing up to the Ballhog on the bridge over the chasm in the dread Andrea Doria... oh, wait........ wrong book...

[DSYoungEsq]

They're taking out Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Who's going to rescue the hobbits from the barrow, then? IIRC, it was Tom that did that, wasn't it?
Tom Bombadil rescues the hobbits twice, first rescuing Merry and Pippen from the clutches of Old Man Willow, then rescuing the whole foursome from the barrow-wight.

Over the years, critics have always had trouble treating Tom Bombadil as anything other than an unnecessary interlude in the story. The character was someone Tolkein had played with for some time prior to writing LotR, and his inclusion was probably a foregone conclusion for that reason, if no other. But one has to ask: did he really advance the plot in any significant way? That is, does Frodo manage to obtain from Bombadil anything of lasting value in his quest to destroy the Ring?

Obviously, those who cut this interlude out of re-tellings feel he didn't. (sigh)

As for the movie concept itself, in light of the stunning special effects available and on display in the recent Star Wars film, clearly some sort of similar treatment would make the LotR quite an enjoyable movie. But it would take a LOT of computer work. Small budgets are NOT the way to manage it...

Nevertheless, I can't WAIT to see Goodgulf standing up to the Ballhog on the bridge over the chasm in the dread Andrea Doria... oh, wait........ wrong book...

[furt]

And I assume the cast is all unknowns? This is the best way to go. As a party game, who would you cast?

Were he alive and had he never done Star Wars, Alec Guiness could play Gandalf. As it is, I think that'll be their hardest casting job.

For the rest, Howabout:
Keanu Reeves as Strider/Aragorn
Corey Feldman as Frodo
Herve Villachaize as Sam
John Goodman as Tom Bombadil
Samuel L. Jackson as Elrond and
Bobcat Goldthwait (remember him?) as Gollum.

Tarantino can direct. I want to hear Hobbits cursing.

anyone taking me seriously will be shot.

[cher3]

I think John Goodman could be a great Tom Bombadil. He has that playful, yet potentially dangerous quality.

On second thought he might be better as Beorn. I always get those two mixed up.

Anyway, I think the most interesting thing about Bombadil was his immunity to the Ring. I can see why they would leave him out of the movie for streamlining reasons. But I enjoyed his presence in the book as a suggestion that Middle Earth had a mysterious past life that was dying out.

[dramatoig]

I've heard rumors of most of the cast--

Elijah Wood is Frodo (Without commenting on Wood specifically as Frodo, I do like the fact that Jackson is not casting midgets as the hobbits--something the description of hobbits in LOTR by Tolkien would support. Then again, he is using computers to "shrink" them, and wondering how this is going to look makes me nervous.)

Ian McKellan as Gandalf (I LOVE this--McKellan is one of my favorite actors.)

Yeesh, I can't remember anyone else--there was an article in Entertainment Weekly either this week or last which listed some more.

Furt, to answer your question, yes, they are doing three movies--in fact, New Line has given Jackson "enough" money to film all three at once! No Bakshi double-dealing here.

Young, one thing I have to say in Jackson's defense relative to the budget is that he has said that, as he is using his own effects company to do the effects, and is filming all three at once, he doesn't need as much money as we might think (and he intends on a lot of effects from what I've read.) Now, whether that will work in practice or not, we'll have to wait until 2001 (groan) to find out...

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

[furt]

Will thy all come out at once, or at 6 month intervals, or what?

And Goodman was the one I was semi-serious about. I'm thinking of his work in Barton Fink (final scene aside).

I'd love Mel Gibson as Strider, were this 1980. But he's way too familiar now.

[Polycarp]

In the "Hobbits' Ears" thread, pldennison wrote:

For anyone who is interested, Aussie director Peter Jackson ("Dead Alive," "The Frighteners," "Heavenly Creatures") is making a live-action LOTR trilogy for New Line Cinema. The trilogy is being filmed over 18 months in New Zealand, then post-production is expected to take 18 additional months. He is using a combination of well-known actors and unknowns for the cast; for the nonhuman characters, he will be using new digital effects to "shrink" them in proportion to the humans. Some of the casting includes Sean Astin as Sam Gamgee, Elijah Wood as Frodo, Ian McKellen as Gandalf and John Rhys-Davies as Boromir. They have a website with info and conceptual art at www.lotr.net (http://www.lotr.net) .


It's a pleasure to at long last be able to quote Phil without disagreeing with him! :

[danielnsmith]

I just hope that these movies are not just a show piece for Peter Jackson. Not only was Dune a murder of a good story, but also 2001. These movies took great stories and obliterated them for a shot at special effects awards.

The only thing in their defense is that if you were to translate the stories directly into books, the movie would take 4 hours to show.

As for the lots of traveling in LOTR, a lot of this will probably be cut out to shorten the length of the movie.

[dramatoig]

Hey, furt, how about Goodman as Barliman Butterbur?

To add to Polycarp's quote, I believe that Ray Park is involved in the movie to some extent at well. Of course, this could just be some wild fanboy rumor...

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

[DrFidelius]

"Tim Tim Benzadrine
Boo, hash, Valvoline.
First, second, neutral,park
Hie thee hence you leafy narc!"

Damn your eyes, DSYoung, now I have to see if my copy survived the Eighties...

[Narile]

The amount Jackson was given to do all three movies is not 'shoestring' it is not Titanic level, but is not shoestring. I believe that the amount he was given would translate into about $240 million in Hollywierd. www.aint-it-cool-news.com (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com) has a lot of information on the film as well.

------------------
>>Being Chaotic Evil means never having to say your sorry....unless the other guy is bigger than you.<<

---The dragon observes

AuraSeer wrote:

For a list of what was wrong with the animated LOTR: http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/bakshi.htm

Wow, I'm flabbergasted at all the things this guy found wrong with Bakshi's cartoon. What amazes me the most, though, is the fact that they advertised the movie as "The Complete" Lord of the Rings when it first came out, not as "Lord of the Rings Part I." I would have demanded my money back if I'd seen it in a theater with the expectation that it was complete.

[andros]

There WAS an animated "Return of the King" filmed, though. Not by Bakshi, but I know I've seen it. Little help here?

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[andros]

Well, "filmed" was a poor choice of wording. But you get the idea.

-a-

Yeah, there was a Rankin-Bass cartoon called "The Return of the King" (the same folks who made "The Hobbit"), but it was spoiled, IMHO, by its incessant use of a minstrel singing inane songs about "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" and other such drivel. It was a kids' flick, mostly, not like Bakshi's adaptation at all, so you really can't call it a genuine sequel.

[andros]

Oh, lovely, Snarkberry. Now that you've reminded me, I have that @!#$%* minstrel in my head.

"Froooodo, of the noine fingersss . . . and the rrringg of dooom!"

Eeesh.

Definitely NOT a sequel.

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

No, I'd say that Rankin-Bass never intended it to be a sequel to Bakshi's work. And that awful music....it's in my head now too! In fact, I'm sorry I brought it up, LOL.

[dramatoig]

One of the things that reassures me about Jackson doing the films, is that in interviews I've seen of him, he expresses a real love for and appreciation for the books. Given his other films (and _Heavenly Creatures_ is one of my all-time favorites), I have to cop to a certain amount if trust that he will get it "right" overall (even with the rumored absence of Bombadil {who, if put to the test, I would probably cut as well, much as I love him in the books})

Then again, I found the Dune movies to be either interesting visually but mediocre otherwise--although the strange changing of the whole "weirding way" pissed me off. Then again, inteviews with Lynch don't seem to reveal the same love of the books that Jackson has....

I'd have to agree with the idea that an adaptation doesn't really affect the quality of the original--it may be annoying or dissapointing, but I don't have to think about Sting every time I re-read Dune

(although Sean Young is another story....)

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

They're taking out Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Who's going to rescue the hobbits from the barrow, then? IIRC, it was Tom that did that, wasn't it?

[andros]

"How exactly did a bad movie "destroy" the piece of literature?" (and your other points as well)

Sorry all, I misspoke a bit. I meant the REPUTATION of the work.

That is, I'd really hate for someone to miss out on a literary experience because the movie adaptation was awful. Personally, I really CANNOT read Dune without picturing Sting. I would rather it had never been filmed.

I guess I don't want anything to DIScourage anyone from reading LotR.

Did I explain myself at all well there? Let me know if I still sound off-base.

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[Boris B]

Lynch didn't actually destroy Dune for me, but hearing my friends talk about how true the movie was to the book pretty much destroyed my faith that I had read the right book.

"What, you mean you don't remember the part about the rat stuck to the cat with duct tape?"

"Uhh ... no. And I don't remember much about the Baron's skin diseases or his flying machine either."

"Man, what book did you read?"

"Uhh ... Dune, I thought. Maybe it was Women Who Love Too Much." Dune was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It makes me really skeptical of everything else Lynch has done, which all seem to be a chance for him to air out the dirty laundry of his sex/torture fantasies. I don't think Ben was very fucking suave, either.

Or maybe I'm thinking of the willow tree that puts them to sleep and then tries to "eat" them, I don't know. My last reading of the LOTR was over 10 years ago. I just can't remember for sure.

[dramatoig]

Snark--yep, Bombadil did rescue them. I dunno how they are going to handle this--maybe cut out the Barrow altogether (another shame.) Then again, Bakshi did the same thing....(and I don't really share much of a love for the Bakshi film. Too much damn rotoscoping)

andro--I can see your point re: the books external reputation. Then again, I could see the adaptation being really good and getting more people to read it and recognize it as the masterpiece it is as well. I also think that people will be re-reading and reading Dune long after we've all forgotten about the movie...

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

[Glitch]

I understand more clearly what you are talking about now, Andros. Thanks.

As from previous posts, I don't think that will be the case, but I could be wrong (if only I could always be right. This would help out tremendously, especially when picking lottery numbers).

[dramatoig]

Another thought--how does the "live action" part of the equation change things? I remember reading about and early attempt (early 70s late 60s) at writing a script that Tolkien rejected--they had changed lembas to "food concentrate" and got over the walking all over the place stuff by having the whole company flown everywhere by eagles! (yeesh) Now Tolkien rejected the script mainly on these (and other equally heinous) grounds, but also said that he thought that a live action adaptation would be impossible. Of course, that was in the early 70s...has the technology expanded to such a point that it is possible now? Especially on the relatively (relative to Titanic) small budget that Jackson got from New Line?

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

What I hate most about the Bakshi film is...[drum roll, please].....he never finished the story!!! He quits right in the middle of a heated battle, and then decides not to make Part II. To me, that's like ending the Star Wars saga with "The Empire Strikes Back's" cliffhanger and never following up on it. What's the deal with that? I know Bakshi was still around, as he did "Cool World," so what's his excuse for not making the necessary sequel? I was so disappointed.

[dramatoig]

Snark, I think he just couldn't get the funding. He made the first one on a shoe-string (the main reason for the tons of roto-scoping), and it didn't do that well at the box office. His rights to the story have since expired (hence the Jackson/New Line production).

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

Dramatoig: What exactly is "roto-scoping"? Is that the technique where he filmed live-action, real people and then turned them into animated figures?

[dramatoig]

Yep. Among animation "purists" (like myself ;-)), this is seen as something of a cheap dodge--plus it generally looks strange and out of place next to more traditional animation. Not that it can't have its place--I think it is used to excellent effect in Bakshi's "Wizards" (IMHO a more interesting film than his LOTR), and, if pressed, the Ringwraiths sort of get an other-wordly look from it as well.

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm." Samuel Johnson

Okay, thanks for the info. :)

[AuraSeer]

For a list of what was wrong with the animated LOTR: http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/bakshi.htm

I hope the live-action treatment works better.

[bantmof]

Well, I'm neutral on a film version of LOTR. But at _least_, I think it would have to be 3 films. Ain't no way, no how it could be done in one. Even with three, it would be very hard indeed to do justice to the thing. And films are pretty much never as good as the books they're made from, so that just sort of goes with the territory, but it might still be worth doing.
...murder of a good story, but also 2001
Sacrilege! Blasphemy! 2001 tops my list of the best films made in the last 50 years, and perhaps the only book->movie adaptation where the movie was as good as the book. And yes, I did read the book. Kubrick made pure magic with that film. A better sci-fi film has not been made.

Granted, it's not a good match for today's 30 second attention spans and hand-held, spoon-fed plots.
--
peas on earth

Bantmof wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...murder of a good story, but also 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sacrilege! Blasphemy! 2001 tops my list of the best films made in the last 50 years, and perhaps the only book->movie adaptation where the movie was as good as the book. And yes, I did read the book. Kubrick made pure magic with that film. A better sci-fi film has not been made.

Let me know if I'm completely out-to-lunch here, but the way I heard it, the "2001" book and movie were created either simultaneously, or the movie was created first and then the book was written slightly later. But I could be wrong.

[RTA]

i've been following it a little. sean bean will play boromir, john rhys-davies (shrunk) as gimli, and unknown eurotrash prettyboy orlando whatsis-name as legolas.
i love those books and have read them many times in my life. i was the most wary that peter jackson was going to make a movie that rapes the text and leaves it for dead like that mental patient david lynch did to dune. but the more i hear and read makes me think that this will not be the case.

for one thing, he is making three movies instead of cramming it into one. this means that lord of the rings could be as long as nine hours overall!! that could well be sufficient. next, he is releasing them six months apart. this means that he is filming it all around the same time, so it will not end up being like the first 3 star wars movies where all the movies look different (different special effects techniques, artistic directors etc.). also he is filming it in new zealand which outside of xena: warrior princess is not a landscape especially familiar to the viewing public. lastly he is in deep with george lucas' industrial light and magic and we all saw this summer what they can do these days. so i am going to give him the benefit of the doubt ... but he better not fuck it up, that's all i have to say.

as far as the bombadil question goes, if you have to cut any one thing that would have to be it. i guess they go from brandy hall straight to bree.

sorry about no caps etc., my keyboard's on its deathbed.

[andros]

RTA, just so no one misunderstands you:

I don't know how close Peter Jackson is to Lucas or Industrial Light & Magic, but ILM is NOT doing F/X for the LotR movies.

I was very disappointed by that.

-andros-

------------------
There's always a bigger fish.

[astorian]

I'm not a serious science fiction buff, so I may be wrong about this, but I THOUGHT the genesis for "2001" was a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called "The Sentinel." In "The Sentinel," all that happened was that astronauts found a beacon on the moon, sending signals far off into deep space. Apparently, aliens had visited our solar system long, long ago, before human beings were recognizable as human. These aliens saw potential aong the apes, and placed a becon on the moon- reasoning that, in a few millions years, if these apes evolved into beings intelligent enough to reach the moon, THEN it would be time for contact. The story (which I haven't read in ages) ends with the narrator wondering how long it will be until the aliens receive the signal and drop by for a second visit.

Stanley Kubrick's "2001" was supposed to be a film version of "The Sentinel," but together, he and CLarke came up with a much longer, more elaborate, more complicated story. So, the novel and the film really resulted from a Kubrick/Clarke collaboration.

Personally, of course, I thought "2001" was a crashing bore, an overrated mess, like most of Kubrick's work (and anyone who disagrees is invited to sit through "Eyes Wide Shut" or "Barry Lyndon" again).

Exceptions: "Paths of Glory" was a very conventional film, by Kubrick's standards, but an immensely moving one. And "A Clockwork Orange" was brilliant.

[DSYoungEsq]

A couple of thoughts:

First, there isn't as much travelling in the LotR as it seems when reading it. It's just that one isn't used to reading descriptions of characters travelling through the world they live in, especially in the detail that Professor Tolkein provided. But, page for page, there is way more action than 'travel.'

Second, the biggest challenge to a movie is handling the sequencing. Now, on the one hand, it is EASIER in a movie to switch from one scene of events to another than in a book. So cuts from the siege at Helm's Deep to Sam and Frodo struggling through the Dead Marshes and across Dagorlad (I think that is the right juxtaposition of events, without actually getting out Appendix B) could be done easily. But that can result in a really choppy movie (remember how hard it was to watch Return of the Jedi at the end?).

Finally, there is the issue of dialogue. Now, when they adapt plays to movies, they usually keep the dialogue as written, with some cuts and occaisional filler as needed (e.g. Cyrano (the recent French version), Henry V, etc.). But movie adaptations of books tend to throw the book dialogue out the window and start from scratch. THIS no Tolkein lover can stand. Yet the trouble with book dialogue is that it makes VERY poor movie dialogue. It is filled with all sorts of stuff that a movie doesn't need, cause book dialogue is often artifice for explaning things, etc. So get ready to hear things Tolkein never wrote...

[Polycarp]

Astorian's first two paragraphs are on target re 2001. Clarke wrote the book and Kubrick the movie script simultaneously, with regular interchanges to assure they kept to the same line. It was derived from Kubrick having read "The Sentinel." Mucho more data in Clarke's The Making of 2001.

Astorian's third paragraph is dysosmic, IMHO. But de gustibus.... :)

[Koxinga]

I know that Rankin Bass's version of The Hobbit and The Return of the King were perhaps more kid-oriented, but one thing left a lasting impression on me from watching those cartoons when I was a kid: John Huston as (the voice of) Gandalf. I didn't know who Huston was at the time, but I thought his voice was amazingly appropriate. I only have a vague impression of Ian McKellan, but he'd better have a rich, deep, powerful voice as well--otherwise, this new film might not work for me at all.

Also, I liked Smaug's voice in the Rankin Bass version as well--can't recall who did it, though, and I know that doesn't apply to LoTR anyway.

DHR

[Temujin]

They're taking out Tom Bombadil? Heresy!This would definitely be disappointing. (But wasn't he actually the Witch-king of Angmar?)

The movie could be a commercial success if:
1) Danny DeVito plays Frodo;
2) Bruce Willis plays Aragorn;
3) Michael "Kramer" Richards plays Gandalf;
4) Everyone is armed with an Uzi; and
5) Sauron turns out to be a drug lord.

[Koxinga]

quote:

=========================================
But wasn't [Tom Bombadil] actually the Witch-king of Angmar?
=========================================

Actually, I think it was the chief of the Nazgul. I've read some speculations that Tom Bombadil might have represented Iluvitar (sp?), the "One" (creator of ME). For all that, though, I know you were being facetious.

=========================================
The movie could be a commercial success if:
1) Danny DeVito plays Frodo;
2) Bruce Willis plays Aragorn;
3) Michael "Kramer" Richards plays Gandalf;
4) Everyone is armed with an Uzi; and
5) Sauron turns out to be a drug lord.
=========================================

Actually, I think this remark brings up a very good point: does LoTR need to be dressed up in more "modern" terms for a brainless movie audiences to understand it? Should it conform to a stupid plot like, "Arnold Schwarzenegger takes an Uzi to blast the cartoonish drug lord"? Or can it stay true to the stark, dualistic underpinning philosophy that still makes the books so fascinating for thoughtful readers?

Back when J.R.R. wrote the trilogy, one could read about real "Dark Lords" in the newspapers or see them on the newsreels, and the heroes that opposed them were real heroes (at least in the public's view): Hitler, Tojo and Stalin against Roosevelt, Churchill, and good old Harry "S". (Though "Uncle Joe" might bring in a little confusion on this point--a former hero turned into dark lord?)

Now whaddawegot? Petty thugs like Milosevic that are opposed by cynical political shucksters like Clinton and Blair (sorry, any of you Brits, but that's at least my superficial impression). I think that's why a rather conventional war flick like Saving Private Ryan generated such fascination: how many people under the age of 45 can watch the depiction of the troops fighting and dying on Omaha Beach without thinking, "I probably wouldn't do that. Probably nobody I know would do that, either."

Sorry for getting off topic, but I'd point out that it took all of Steven Spielburg's goriest special effects to get people to suspend disbelief long enough to appreciate the existence of real heroes, and really evil enemies. That's why I don't think LoTR can succeed on film in any recognizable form (except possibly as a dumbed-down kid's flick). Elves, dwarves, hobbits, OK, we can get into that, but a real struggle between good and evil? Simply put, nobody would believe it.

DHR

[Koxinga]

I should clarify: The chief Nazgul was the former Witch-King of Angmar (assuming that I recall correctly). Tom Bombadil wasn't a Nazgul either, though you might have got that impression from my post.

Who can name all of the nine "walkers" in the Company of the Ring?

DHR

[Polycarp]

DHR, you're saying that Dzugashvili Skywalker turned into Darth Stalin? ;)

In the one intelligent lyric ever to come from their collective mouths, the Monkees sang "Today there is no dark or light, today there is no wrong or right, today there is no black or white, only shades of gray." You may have a real point, that we may reject a LotR movie not because it was not well done but because we've rejected the concepts of good/evil and heroism that form the underpinnings of the plot. I hope not.

[DSYoungEsq]

Tom Bombadil was not the Witch-King of Angmar. That was the head Nazgul (ring-man), the head of the former kings of men who wore the 'Nine for mortal men doomed to die' (rings). His purpose in founding Angmar was to destroy the northern realm of Arnor, which he did, in fact accomplish (the last king was Arvedui), before vanishing when defeated by the combined might of Gondor, the Havens, and Rivendell and being confronted by the elf-lord Glorfindel.

The names of the nine walkers are easy, almost all have already been mentioned, except, of course, for Bromosel, who cashes in his chips 'round page 88. ;)

[pldennison]

Weren't two of the biggest movies of the year "Star Wars" and "The Matrix," two movies that deal with nothing more than good vs. evil and messianic hero figures?

[Koxinga]

======================================
DHR, you're saying that Dzugashvili Skywalker turned into Darth Stalin?
======================================

Good one, Polycarp, but no. I just meant that Uncle Joe was portrayed as a hero during WWII (ATIRC, assuming that I recall correctly), but shortly after the war he suddently became a villain in the popular mind. Instead of Sauron, a closer analogy for Stalin might be Saruman. (Funny how they all begin with "S" . . . COIIIIINCIDENCE?) Of course, the analogy still isn't all *that* close.

pldennison,

I haven't seen the Matrix, and I REALLY wish I could say the same for "Episode I". All the same, I wonder how the dualistic philosophies of Star Wars and LoTR might compare--both seem to suggest that evil (the Dark Side, if you will) definitely exists, but nothing is evil at its inception--not even Sauron, nor Darth Vader. However, the morals of Star Wars always seemed more relativistic to me, somehow.

More analogy fun--could parallels be drawn between Palpatine and Melkor?

DHR

[GuanoLad]

Peter Jackson is a New Zealander and not an Australian. I wish people could get that straight in their heads (not that any Staright Dopers got that wrong, it was in a quoted article).

Cast:
Elijah Wood as Frodo
Sean Astin as Sam
Ian McKellen as Gandalf
Ian Holm as Bilbo
Billy Boyd as Pippin
Dominic Monaghan as Merry
Stuart Townshend as Strider/Aragorn
Christopher Lee as Saruman
Liv Tyler as Arwen (eep!)
John Rhys Davies as Gimli
Sean Bean as Boromir
Ethan Hawke as Faramir
Uma Thurman as Galadriel
Orlando Bloom as Legolas

All three movies will be filmed, roughly separating as the book trilogy does, and probably titled as 'Fellowship of the Ring', 'The Two Towers', and 'Return of the King'.

The budget of 240 million is, in New Zealand terms, especially regarding costs of NZ equipment, locations, and crew, and taking into account the exchange rate, roughly the equivalent of twice what George Lucas is spending on his new Star Wars trilogy.

The effects will be done almost exclusively in-house by WETA FX, which is Jackson's own effects company. They are using new effects programs to create the battles, and to make the full sized actors look Hobbit- and Elf-sized etc.

There will be Nazgul, Ents, Orcs, a Balrog, and of course Gollum (he will be CGI) and almost every significant scene will endeavour to be included.

The Elves will speak genuine Tolkien Elvish where appropriate, with subtitles.

Famed Tolkien artists John Howe and Alan Lee are contributing to most of the Production Design.

All in all, the work going into making this as close to the book's vision as possible is meticulous and detailed. Peter knows he has a tough job ahead, appeasing the diehard fans as well as drawing in a new audience. But he has been given every resource, every faith, and every bit of support that New Line Cinema can for it to be, for the time being, as definitive a production as can be expected.

And to give you an idea of how it will be, he's approaching it not as a Fantasy movie, not as an Adventure movie, and not as a Spielberg clone, but as an accurate historical recreation of what happened to the Fellowship, and the story behind the Ring's journey.

These movies will rock. Believe me.

[dramatoig]

Guano--thanks for the skinny. I think that it is a credit to the complexity and "realism" of the LOTR that Jackson would think of filming it "historically"--only a book with so much detail could be approached so.

BTW, I'm especially jazzed about two casting choices--Ian McKellan as Gandalf, and Christopher Lee as Saruman....

------------------
"You must not mind me madam; I say strange things, but I mean no harm."
--Samuel Johnson

[Temujin]

Tom Bombadil was not the Witch-King of Angmar.Are you sure? Maybe you should check out:
http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/bombadil.htm

[VegForLife]

Although the theory may or may not have been advanced in all seriousness, the web-site referenced is definitely treating it as a "crack-pot theory." At the bottom of the page is a link back to the crack-pot theory page, which includes this one, which I thought quite amusing: http://www.speakeasy.org/~ohh/twinkies.htm

Rich

[Polycarp]

ROFL. It would figure that elves and other mythical denizens like twinkies. ;)

[DSYoungEsq]

<laughing> that is the most ridiculous silly thing I have ever read about the LotR, and there were a LOT of silly things written back in the 60's and 70's (remember the fan club with its own monthly magazine??).

There are two reasons it can't be true.

1) It couldn't happen. The Nazgul are what they are because they were induced to wear one of the Nine rings for mortal men back in the Second Age. The reason they are wraiths is because they are unnaturally alive, so thinned by the experience that only the power of their master keeps them going. They are totally under Sauron's control and couldn't shuck it off if they tried.

2) Gandalf and Elrond and the elves muse about giving the Ring to Bombadil, who is described as being so feckless that he would likely just toss it away. Even the Witch-King woulda at least USED the thing.

I am, of course, assuming the web site is tongue in cheek, though you never know with the LotR... :)

[Temujin]

ROFLMe too.

[GuanoLad]

More on the casting:

Uma Thurman won't be Galadriel after all - she'll be Eowyn.

Cate Blanchett may be Galadriel instead.

[kaylasdad99]

Sorry not to have seen any more recent posts referencing BotR, but I'm going to inject the subject back into the thread, anyway:
So, after Peter Jackson finishes LotR, there will be an opening for a film adaptation of BotR. How do we set up the cast and production team?
Director: Mel Brooks (of course)
Special effects: Sid and Marty Krofft (or Jim Henson Productions, take your pick)
Frito: Danny deVito
Spam: Gary Coleman
Goodgulf/Serutan: (easy enough to manage dual casting) Christopher Lloyd
Arrowroot, son of Arrowshirt: Brendan Fraser (just because he seems to enjoy this sort of thing; cf. George of the Jungle and Dudley Doo-Right)
Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee: John Goodman

Feel free to jump in any time.



------------------
Tom Berenger: "You're not a good guy at all!"
Patrick Wayne: "I'm a LAWYER, you idiot!!"

[pldennison]

Mel Brooks? Mel Brooks hasn't made a good movie since, well, cripes, since "High Anxiety."

[VegForLife]

Geez, that was, like, 2000 years ago. . .

Rich

[kaylasdad99]

Yeah, well that's what I mean. He's DUE!
Anyway I couldn't remember the name of the guy who directed "Rustler's Rhapsody." And it coulda been worse. I could have said Jerry Lewis (note to late-arriving archeologists: see Cecil's weekly column for the day this posting first appeared).
kaylasdad99
P.S. VegForLife: 2000 years? I get it.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[andros]

K's Dad,

2000 years ago we all lived in caves. Veg's was the best. It even had its own national anthem.

What was that anthem again, Veg?

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[VegForLife]

"22 Men."

Rich

[RTA]

That fat-lipped, heroin-chic Aerosmith-parasite as Arwen?! Oh god, why, why ...

[andros]

Kayla's Dad--

Mel and Carl Reiner did a comedy sketch a zillion years ago called "The 2000 Year-Old Man."

-andros-

[VegForLife]

. . .and I couldn't remember the "cave man" part, so I threw in a song from somewhere else in the bit as the anthem.

Rich

[kaylasdad99]

andros,
Yes, I know. That's why I said "I get it." As for the rest, with the 22 men and the anthem, . . . HUH?

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[Warsmith]

Haven't been here in a long while...

First, on Dune: You gotta remember the time restraints. Even with all Lynch left out of even the director's cut, it's still 4 hours long! If he had tried to make the whole book into a movie, there wouldn't have been very many people to watch it at all.

In reading the book after the movie, I tend to see all the cast members as they were in the movie, except that most act substantially better:P

On Bombadil: he is required for the story. As another pointed out, he rescued them from the barrow mound, but he also gave them their leaf-bladed swords, which they carry for most of the rest of the story. Without Bombadil, they're reduced to making the swords family heirlooms or just having the hobbits walk into the mound, grab the swords and walk back out. If they actually run into the barrow wight and get away from it with the swords, without Bombadil's help...at the least it would change the characters themselves, in that they were not capable of doing such a thing at that point in the story.

Still, I'll watch it :)

[GuanoLad]

This is what Peter Jackson had to say about Tom Bombadil last December:


"Also, will you be including Tom Bombadil? The Ralph Bakshi production cut it out, as did the BBC radio drama.”

PJ: At this point in time Bombadil is out. The main reason is not just time or pace, but one of simple narrative focus ... the Bombadil sequence has so little to do with Sauron or the Ring, it is difficult to justify the screen time. It simply doesn't give us any vital new information. A very simplest rule of thumb that I use in movie storytelling is to try and further the story with each new scene.

I'm flicking through our Fellowship script ... it is 138 pages long. The Hobbits leave Hobbiton on page 30, and arrive at Rivendell on page 63. Even that 33 pages on the road feels a little long and will probably get trimmed in our next draft.

------------------
"Waheeey! 'Duck!' Get it?"
"Errr.... No..."
"Duck! Sounds almost exactly like fu-"

[DSYoungEsq]

So much for the idea of approaching it as a 'history' that needs reverent treatment... :P

[GuanoLad]

He also only has six hours and other severe limits to recreate half the world population's imagination in 2D movie format.

That's one hell of a challenge I'd like to see you attempt to live up to.

Give the guy a break - his reasonings will be for the best. I'm sure he's reluctant to cut any scenes out, but if he has to do it, then he'll be judicious.



------------------
"Waheeey! 'Duck!' Get it?"
"Errr.... No..."
"Duck! Sounds almost exactly like fu-"

[kaylasdad99]

If something's worth doing at all, it's worth doing right. Who says it has to be done in six hours? Well, the guys who are paying for it, I suppose, but what do they know? I think I'll just read the trilogy to my little girl right now, before they start putting Shelob action figures into her Happy Meals. Poor kid thinks the little mermaid actually marries the prince; I have to be able to save _some_ literature for her.

------------------
Time to change the signature line; my cover's been blown . . .

[GuanoLad]

I trust this further word from one of the stars, who is a huge Tolkien fan and a cool guy to boot, Christopher Lee:

Regarding the films’ scripts, Lee has only good things to say. "Well, I've only read the first one," he admits. "But (Peter's) done a splendid job, to condense this colossal epic, as big as The Odyssey or The Illiad, to the point where you can make it and present it to the public. I think a very large number of people are very excited."



------------------
"Waheeey! 'Duck!' Get it?"
"Errr.... No..."
"Duck! Sounds almost exactly like fu-"

[VegForLife]

As for the rest, with the 22 men and the anthem, . . . HUH?
Later on the "2000 Year Old Man" album, in a sketch which is called, I believe, "The Coffeehouse," Carl Reiner plays an interviewer who goes into an artsy coffeehouse and interviews various artists there. One of them is a musician who plays a stringed instrument, so Carl asks him to compose a song on the spot. The song he composes is called "22 Men", and the lyrics are:

"22 men fell down and hurt their knees.
22 men fell down and hurt their knees.
22 men fell down,
down to the ground,
22 men fell down and hurt their knees."

Carl's not too impressed, so he says something along the lines of, "well, okay, but can you come up with something bigger, more topical?" So Mel thinks for a minute, and then, to the same tune, sings,

"Big Dick Nixon hurt his knee." The political situation being what it was at the time, laughter erupts from the audience almost immediately.

Rich

[andros]

And I just had to dig out my copy last night, but of course couldn't find it. Grrr.

The cave anthem went something like:

"All the other caves can go to hell
Except for cave 746."

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

"THE LORD OF THE RINGS" TO BEGIN PRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN NEW ZEALAND

Peter Jackson Directs International Cast
In Production of Unprecedented Scope

(Los Angeles, October 7, 1999) - The Lord of the Rings film trilogy begins principal photography in Wellington, New Zealand, on October 11, 1999, under the direction of Peter Jackson, it was jointly announced today by Robert Shaye, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of New Line Cinema; Michael Lynne, President and Chief Operating Officer of New Line Cinema; Michael De Luca, President and Chief Operating Officer of New Line Productions; Mark Ordesky, President of Fine Line Features; and Jackson, who is also a writer and producer of the production.

Unprecedented in scope, the production breaks new ground in movie-making by filming the three titles in this saga -- The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King - not consecutively but concurrently, as though they were all one giant motion picture production.

Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved series of fantasy novels, The Lord of the Rings franchise stars (in alphabetical order) Sean Astin, Sean Bean, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom, Billy Boyd, Brad Dourif, Sir Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, Sir Ian McKellen, Dominic Monaghan, John Rhys-Davies, Stuart Townsend, Liv Tyler and Elijah Wood, whose casting was previously announced.

The screenplay is written by Jackson (The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures); his longtime production partner, Fran Walsh (The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures); Philippa Boyens; and Stephen Sinclair (Braindead, Meet the Feebles). The producers are Barrie M. Osborne (The Matrix, Face/Off) and Tim Sanders (Aberration, The Frighteners) and Jackson, and the executive producers are Saul Zaentz (The English Patient, Amadeus), and Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein (co-chairmen of Miramax). Walsh and Rich Porras (Contact) are associate producing under Jackson's WingNut Films Banner.

Other members of the distinguished behind-the-camera crew include director of photography Andrew Lesnie (Babe, Babe: Pig in the City), production designer Grant Major (The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures), costume designer Ngila Dickson (Xena, Warrior Princess; Hercules; Heavenly Creatures), and makeup and hair designer Peter Owen (Oscar and Lucinda, Philadelphia).

WETA Workshop is executing armor, miniatures, creatures and special effects make-up under the direction of supervisor Richard Taylor. WETA Digital is executing the special visual effects under the direction of visual effects supervisor Mark Stetson (The Fifth Element and upcoming Super Nova). Visual effects producer for WETA is Charlie McClellan (The Frighteners, Contact). The conceptual artists are Alan Lee and John Howe, renowned for their illustrations of Tolkien's work. The official The Lord of the Rings website is www.lordoftherings.net. (http://www.lordoftherings.net.)

Coinciding with the start of principal photography, Houghton Mifflin is publishing a one-time-only millennium edition of The Lord of the Rings. For the first time, the Rings saga is being presented in a boxed set of seven hard-cover volumes, one for each of its six parts plus a seventh volume containing the appendices. One of the most beloved stories of the 20th century, The Lord of the Rings has sold more than 50 million copies worldwide in 25 different languages.

Michael De Luca, President and Chief Operating Officer of New Line Productions, said: "The Lord of the Rings is among the greatest adventures ever written, and making this film is proving to be a wonderful adventure in its own right. Like Frodo, the hero of this saga, we're on a film 'quest,' and I can't think of anyone better to lead us than Peter Jackson."

Mark Ordesky, President of Fine Line Features, said: "Filming three features simultaneously is a pretty daring proposition, but we have a wonderful team of filmmakers and actors who are more than up to the job and who are going to make this saga a deeply felt experience for moviegoers everywhere."

Jackson said: "My team and I have poured our hearts into this project for the past three years, so it's a great thrill to begin actual photography. Filming three films at once has never been done before, in addition to which the project features state-of-the-art special effects, so it was essential to plan everything down to the last detail. We owe Professor Tolkien and his legion of fans worldwide our very best efforts to make these films with the integrity they deserve."

As previously announced, Elijah Wood (Deep Impact, The War) stars as Frodo, a young hobbit who, by inheriting a seemingly innocent magic ring, finds himself launched on a perilous quest to save all of Middle Earth from encroaching evil.

Other members of the cast include Sean Astin as Sam Gamgee, Frodo's most faithful friend. Astin gained early attention for his starring role in The Goonies and has since appeared in numerous films and TV productions, including Bulworth, Courage Under Fire, Rudy and Memphis Belle. He was nominated for an Oscar® for the short film Kangaroo Court, which he directed and produced.

Sean Bean stars as Boromir, a human and the hot-blooded elder son of the ruler of the kingdom of Gondor. The rugged English actor has appeared in Ronin, GoldenEye, Patriot Games and The Field, among other films, and starred in the title role of Sharpe's Waterloo, Sharpe's Justice and the many other installments in the Sharpe series based on Bernard Cornwell's novels.

Cate Blanchett stars as the elf Galadriel, the wise visionary queen of Lorien. For her performance in the title role of Elizabeth last year, the Australian actress won the Golden Globe and BAFTA awards as well as an Oscar® nomination. She has also been lauded for her performances in such films as An Ideal Husband, Thank God He Met Lizzie, and Oscar and Lucinda.

Orlando Bloom stars as Legolas, a valiant elf who joins Frodo on his quest. Bloom has just graduated from Guildhall and has appeared in the television production Midsomer Murders.

Billy Boyd stars as Pippin, a young hobbit and close friend of Frodo who accompanies him on his mission to destroy the magic ring. He has appeared in the TV miniseries Coming Soon and the feature Urban Ghost Story.

Brad Dourif stars as Wormtongue, the manipulative adviser to King Theodon and a pawn of the evil wizard Saruman. Since making his film debut in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, for which he earned an Academy Award® nomination, a Golden Globe Award and a BAFTA Award, Dourif has appeared in over 40 films. Among these are Ragtime, Wise Blood, Blue Velvet, Alien Resurrection and all four of the Chucky movies, in which he provided the voice of Chucky.

Sir Ian Holm stars as the hobbit Bilbo, Frodo's cousin and the original bearer of the magic ring. One of Britain's most distinguished actors, Sir Ian received BAFTA Awards for Chariots of Fire and The Bofors Gun. His many other credits include The Match, eXistenZ, King Lear, The Sweet Hereafter, The Madness of King George, Hamlet, Brazil, Greystoke and Alien. He also earned a Tony Award for his performance in Moonlight, and in 1989 he was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British Empire).

Christopher Lee stars as Saruman, the chief of all wizards who hopes to snare the magic ring for himself. During a career spanning five decades, Lee has appeared in dozens of film and television productions. Recently, he starred in the title role of Jinnah, the story of Pakistan's founder. Other films include Tim Burton's upcoming Sleepy Hollow, Police Academy: Mission to Moscow, The Man With the Golden Gun, The Three Musketeers, The Wicker Man, the classic 1959 production of The Mummy and numerous horror films.

Sir Ian McKellen stars as the wise wizard Gandalf, who is Frodo's mentor and protector. Sir Ian, who was knighted for his contributions to the performing arts, recently starred in Gods and Monsters, for which he received many awards and an Oscar® nomination. His screen successes include Apt Pupil, Scandal, And the Band Played On (Emmy nomination and C

[kaylasdad99]

As fas as Christopher Lee is concerned, he can suck my (oh, wait a minute, that's not very nice). . . well he's a big doodyhead, even if he does say he loves Tolkien. If the "public" can't handle the thing word-for-word, the "public" can bloody well do without it.

------------------
My recruiter promised they'd teach me calculus in Nuclear Power School. I want my eleven yars back.

[DSYoungEsq]

And who wants to bet that Liv Tyler as Arwen ends up with WAY more time in the movies than the original books give her? As I recall, she sings one song in Rivendell, and then is wholly absent from the story until after the destruction of the ring, when she arrives in Gondor to wed Aragorn. Oh, yeah, they booked Liv Tyler for her singing...

This thing is gonna be mutilated < sigh >

[GuanoLad]

Hey guys, why are you judging this movie before it gets made? Can't you just wait and see first before casting stones?

Nobody can turn a book into a movie without some altered elements. Otherwise it'll be a boring piece of crap - all talking heads and no visual excitement.

I don't think you guys understand how moviemaking works. And you're being a tad unfair reviewing a movie that hasn't been made yet.



------------------
"Waheeey! 'Duck!' Get it?"
"Errr.... No..."
"Duck! Sounds almost exactly like fu-"

[VegForLife]

The ring gets DESTROYED?? Damn spoilers. . .

Rich

[Polycarp]

The main problem with the LotR movie is that it will inevitably suffer from what I call the Silmarillion Effect...singularly appropriate in that it's a Tolkien topic. What the S.E. is in my mind is the idea that when something is eagerly expected as a follow-up to something else known and loved, no matter how good it is, it'll inevitably fall short of one's hopes.

[DSYoungEsq]

Nobody can turn a book into a movie without some altered elements. Otherwise it'll be a boring piece of crap - all talking heads and no visual excitement.

I don't think you guys understand how moviemaking works. And you're being a tad unfair reviewing a movie that hasn't been made yet.

IF the movie in question was an adaptation of some relatively minor work, then you would be right.

But adapting the LotR to a movie is taking on a piece of VERY loved literature, with millions of already existing fans. Those of us who are fans of the books understand not every piece of the books can make it into the movie. But we CAN complain when it is evident that the movie will ADD things that didn't exist in the books. In part, we do this because we have previously experienced efforts to render the books into movie format, and were horribly dissapointed in the process.

[GuanoLad]

Certainly you can express concern, and you can proclaim your love of the originals. You can even worry if you like.

But you're judging the film before it has been even filmed. I think you're being premature, that's all.

When you see some screenshots and clips, or hear about what the script actually contains, then you can complain. Until then, I think you should give this effort the benefit of the doubt. It's going to be different to any other adaptation out there.

For example, when you look at the various pieces of artwork that people like Alan Lee and John Howe create, and their versions of Galadriel's Mirror differ not only from your imaginings, but from each other's, do you dismiss their whole effort? Or do you say, "Wow, cool artwork, but I imagined them differently"?

I think the least you can do is have the latter approach when it comes to these movies, until you have good cause to dislike them.



------------------
"Waheeey! 'Duck!' Get it?"
"Errr.... No..."
"Duck! Sounds almost exactly like fu-"

[Polycarp]

Andros, you're my kind of pessimist...

"A pessimist is always prepared for the worst. He's never disappointed. On the rare occasions that something good happens, he's pleasantly surprised."

I heard this back in the 60's and memorized it, but I have no idea who originally said it.

[Koxinga]

"A pessimist is always prepared for the worst. He's never disappointed. On the rare occasions that something good happens, he's pleasantly surprised."

I think that was Benjamin Franklin when he appeared on that TV show Bewitched.

DHR

[GuanoLad]

Hmmm...

For what it's worth, I was totally hyped to see the Phantome Menace (after 15 years of waiting) and I loved it.

I guess I'm sort of unique in that.



------------------
"To me, socks are like sex. Tons of it about, and I don't seem to get any."

[andros]

I can't speak for the others here, Guano, but I'm treating these films as I treated Phantom Menace:
I'm bashing them big time.

Because I know a film adaptation of LotR can not live up to my hopes. so I'm lowering my expectations.

By trying to convince myself that it will suck, when it does come out I'll be ecstatic that it doesn't. And if it does happen to suck (I don't think it will), I won't be crushed.

Bear in mind that the folks posting will not let their concerns stop them from seeing the movies.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[DSYoungEsq]

For example, when you look at the various pieces of artwork that people like Alan Lee and John Howe create, and their versions of Galadriel's Mirror differ not only from your imaginings, but from each other's, do you dismiss their whole effort? Or do you say, "Wow, cool artwork, but I imagined them differently"?

I think the least you can do is have the latter approach when it comes to these movies, until you have good cause to dislike them.

This misses the point of the criticisms entirely. I and others are not saying: well, we aren't going to like what they make the balrog look like, or the nazgûl look like, so they will be bad. We are saying: Taking out Tom Bombadil makes it hard to explain later aspects of the movie without making something up, and looks like they intend to have Arwen be more involved than Tolkein had her be, etc. In other words, to use your own image, suppose that an artist painst the scene of Galadriel's mirror, but shows that Aragorn was present with Frodo and Sam. In that case, YES, I would criticize the picture, because it wouldn't be correct.

[Arnold Winkelried]

I must say that my opinion is:

Why make a movie at all? If someone is interested in the story of the Lord of the Rings, why can't they go read the book?

I'm being disingenuous, because of course the reason for making a movie is to capitalize on the success of the book. But with all the talented screenwriters in the world, why not come up with a new story? Wouldn't we be worse off if instead of writing "The Lord of the Rings", Tolkien re-wrote the story of Robin Hood?

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal

[andros]

because of course the reason for making a movie is to
capitalize on the success of the book.

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. There have been many films based on unsuccessful books.

As for the rest:

By your reasoning, then, there should be no films based on books, stories, or legends? Well, geez. I guess The Iliad shouldn't be translated, then? If we want to read it we can just learn ancient Greek?

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[Arnold Winkelried]

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. There have been many films based on unsuccessful books.

You're right, I meant to say "The reason for making this movie is to capitalize on the success of the book."

By your reasoning, then, there should be no films based on books, stories, or legends? Well, geez. I guess The Iliad shouldn't be translated, then? If we want to read it we can just learn ancient Greek?

First, I didn't say anything about translation.

But yes, I think it shows a lack of imagination to make a film version of a popular book.

In some cases, the movie can add some additional insight to the tale, but in most cases, it ends up being a chopped-up "condensed" copy of the book.

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal

[Polycarp]

I enjoy reading science fiction and fantasy. I enjoy some SF movies. I have rarely seen a science fiction or fantasy movie that I have enjoyed where it has been adapted from a book I have enjoyed.

Three (or five) exceptions, and my reasons why:
Jurassic Park and The Lost World (counting as one entry) Some of the concepts Crichton explored in the book were lost in the movie, but the technical excellence of the movies and their plotlines carried them, at least as far as I was concerned.
2001 and 2012. In both these cases, the movie and the book were done simultaneously by a good writer and a good moviemaker collaborating on the general plotline. One absolutely fascinating point to me was that the metaphysical underpinnings of 2012 were almost antithetical between book and movie.
Starship Troopers. This is the exception that proves the rule, for me. Though the script went relatively far afield from what Heinlein did in the novel, it remained true to his conception; the theme was the same. It was a true adaptation to the screen.

I am absolutely certain that there is no way on Earth, short of a 50- or 100-hour miniseries, that The Lord of the Rings can be placed on screen as is. The books are too intricate, carrying too finely designed a world structure, with too many paralleling plot elements, to be successfully converted to the screen. I have high hopes that Jackson will do a successful adaptation. To hypothesize three book elements that might not survive intact on the screen, I guarantee that anyone interested in picking nits will find themselves upset by the minimization of Barleyman Butterbur, the characterization given to Treebeard, or the short shrift given to the battle scenes in Rohan. (Disclaimer: I have no inside information; these items are hypothetical.) On the other hand, if they look at what is actually placed on screen as a dramatic entity, and judge it not by one-to-one correspondence to the LotR books but by its attempt to remain true to Tolkien's world and concepts, it could be a very successful adaptation.

[DSYoungEsq]

Actually, Polycarp, your examples are excellent points for discussing what an adaptation of the books COULD involve editing while remaining true to the story.

Barlyman Butterbur is a good example. His only real contribution to the plot line is that he explains the lack of word from Gandalf before Frodo leaves The Shire. In an adaptation for film, that could be easily handled without much reference to or development of the character. "Strider" could still be introduced in a letter from Gandalf handed to Frodo from the innkeeper.

Similarly, Frodo's song about the Man in the Moon, during which his possession of the Ring is made clear to Sauron's agents in Bree, could easily be eliminated. Yes, it all made the book more fun to read, learning how the Nazgûl could find out about Frodo after losing him in the Old Forest, but I have thought for some time that Frodo was doomed to be found regardless of this slip.

With Treebeard, I frankly HOPE the vast majority of the chapters entitled "The Uruk-hai" and "Treebeard" is removed. They dragged when reading them, and who wants to watch Merry and Pippen wander Fangorn while the Ents take a day to say hello to each other? But, if Treebeard and the Ents are presented as anything other than what Tolkein describes, THAT is a whole different kettle of fish. The Ents are necessary; without them Saruman cannot be overcome and the War ends disastrously for Gondor well before Frodo even gets to Mordor.

No one is expecting a word for word rendition. Let's just hope they don't insert too much foreign material...

[andros]

As I see it, JRK, you were talking about translation--between artistic media, rather than language.

As an example: Sunset Boulevard. Brilliant movie. And also a very beautiful and effective musical (please don't tell anyone I said something nice about an Andrew Lloyd Webber play!). Sure, the story was the same, with some of the same dialog, but that didn't make the play any less important. It was a retelling in a different form.

I agree with you, though, in that I'd really prefer everyone had their initial exposure to Tolkien be through reading the books. I just don't believe a story should only be told once in only one way.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[GuanoLad]

Peter Jackson is not going to change anything from the books. He is going to leave out some scenes, because they wouldn't work in a movie sense. He's going to expand a tiny bit on some scenes, because they will capture the audience's attention better, and feel more satisfying perhaps.

He is not going to act as though there never was a Tom Bombadil, but merely not include those scenes in the movie.

That's a lot different to what you guys seem to be implying.



------------------
"Well, roll me in eggs and flour and bake me for forty minutes!"

The Legend Of PigeonMan (http://www.hotkey.net.au/~guanolad/pigeonman/main.htm)

[VegForLife]

Jurassic Park and The Lost World (counting as one entry) Some of the concepts Crichton explored in the book were lost in the movie, but the technical excellence of the movies and their plotlines carried them, at least as far as I was concerned.
Yeah, that GUI that the little girl was using in JP was certainly realistic. I can certainly imagine a multi-million dollar theme park employing a security system that looked like a nintendo game.

Rich
(Not that the movie wasn't entertaining, it's just that Crichton hasn't written anything worthwhile since "The Andromeda Strain," and the same goes for movie adaptations of his works, IMNSHO.)

[Polycarp]

Grrr...how about:
...the usual technical excellence of the movies and their plotlines (allowing for the occasional technical flaw) carried them.... {phrases in bold or italics added}

Look...there's another nit!! ;)

[VegForLife]

Well, I'll admit that the plotline for JP was good, and fairly true to the book. And it *was* technically excellent, at least as far as special effects go. I just don't think that the plotline was excellent, or that the special effects were enough to make the movie overall "technically excellent." Whatever, just my opinion.

IMO, the plotline for TLW got left on the cutting room floor somewhere. Lousy book sequel, lousy movie sequel.

I've always thought that one of the best book-to-movie adaptations was "Jaws." It's one of the few that I can remember where I thought the movie was better than the book. "Coma" ranks up there as well, although since that was one of Cook's better books (which isn't saying much), I'm not sure I'd say the movie was *better*.

Rich

[Arnold Winkelried]

I agree with you, though, in that I'd really prefer everyone had their initial exposure to Tolkien be through reading the books. I just don't believe a story should only be told once in only one way.

I don't say that a story can only be told in one way. But if a director intends on doing a movie and staying 100% faithful with a book, I say "what's the point?"

A worthwhile project, in my mind, would be where a director attempts a personal interpretation of the story and uses his own vision.

As an example, I though Gus Van Sant's remake of "Psycho", a shot-by-shot recreation using the verbatim original script, was a sterile and pointless exercise, only interesting for "novelty" effect.

Jacques

------------------
J'ai assez vécu pour voir que différence engendre haine.
Henri B. Stendhal

[HubZilla]

First of all, I think there will be some changes, this being the 90s/aughts/whatever. You can be sure the female characters will have larger and longer roles than in the book.

Second (but related), I am not to familiar with all of the cast. Kind of "If I see them, I'll remember them", but are any minorities below? IIRC, I think Sauron's Haradrim/Southrons were meant to resemble Arabs or Africans. At any rate, I imagine the "good guys" will feature a few prominent minorities.


Cast:
Elijah Wood as Frodo
Sean Astin as Sam
Ian McKellen as Gandalf
Ian Holm as Bilbo
Billy Boyd as Pippin
Dominic Monaghan as Merry
Stuart Townshend as Strider/Aragorn
Christopher Lee as Saruman
Liv Tyler as Arwen (eep!)
John Rhys Davies as Gimli
Sean Bean as Boromir
Ethan Hawke as Faramir
Uma Thurman as Galadriel
Orlando Bloom as Legolas


Finally, will anyone be cast as Sauron? Any idea how Sauron might look? Beyond an eye, the book seemed to me to go to great lengths not to describe The Enemy.

------------------
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" - William McAdoo

[dasmoocher]

There's a whole message board about the LOTR: http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro (Sorry I haven't bothered to make it a link, but you can always cut and paste the address). Staurt Tonwsend was fired and replaced with Viggo Mortenson for the role of Aragorn, which works for me since Townsend (who's like 26) is too young to play weather-beaten Strider; Mortenson's 41 or so.

[RTFirefly]

Dr F,
That stanza actually goes like this:

"Tim Tim, Benzedrine!
Hash! Boo! Valvoline!
Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
First, second, neutral, park,
Hie thee hence, you leafy narc!"

Now excuse me while I sit on the floor and pick my nose, and dream exotic dreams. ;-)

Was BotR the best parody ever, or what?