should the LotR movies be made?

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.

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

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

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.)

ummm, I don’t think www.lotr.com is the official site. Or even remotely related.

There’s a www.lordoftherings.net Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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?

“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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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