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
The official LotR site can be found at 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 is the official site. Or even remotely related.

[jazzmine]

There's a 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

-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 .

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 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