LOTR will suck....and here's why

[STARKE]

Midgets on camera simply don't work. Although I enjoyed the books as much as the next guy, if I was a betting man, I would certainly bet against LOTR being good. And Final Fantasy has an even less chance of being good.

Replies?

[Scorchlord]

Uh.......the last time I checked midgets weren't used in the making of this film.

And isn't there a more politically correct term? We'll have the midget society suing us.

[STARKE]

Do you know what a 'hobbit' is?

[loner]

Ever see TIME BANDITS?? Midgets on camera work /ubb/smile.gif

[choicebro2001]

They didn't use midgets. They used well known actors and with a little help from Mr. CGI shrunk them down to midget size (okay, okay hight challenged persons size). Everyone knows how much THE LORD OF THE RINGS will rock anyhow.

[ak]

I find it simply outstanding that such ignorance can be placed on such a film.
What do you mean "midgets", you most likely have not a clue what your talking about.

The new trailer showed some Hobbit action in it, portraying their size comparison, but didn't show a great deal of the mass skill and immense work that has gone into making the more difficult size comparison shots in the film.
Critics who saw the 25 minutes at Cannes say that the image of Ian Holm as Bilbo is so seamless walking next to a full sized Ian McKellen that the brain has trouble taking it in.
It's not even like they have used "small men" to play the parts of the Hobbits, now that would have looked awful.
I must also question why you have dismayed the entire trilogy through just one aspect that seems to be working perfectly.
Peter Jackson is a superb director of immense talents, and the amount of work put into these films is outstanding.
The sooner people respect how hard it is to make a decent film, the more people would take the medium more seriously.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 06-10-2001).]

[STARKE]

We'll see

[NexSplbrg]

LOTR is going to be very good. I haven't read the book because i dont want to know what happens in the 3 movies. Im 100% all the three LOTR movies will be very good.

[ak]

I am re-reading the books at the moment, and i think it is better to read the books, cause it will be astonishing to see how they have portrayed it in the film.

[STARKE]

NexSplbrg, I can promise you, no matter how un-bad the movies end up, the books will still be 10x better. Read them, if you want the real experience.

[ak]

There is no way the medium of film can be compared to literature.

LOTR is a personal journey with Frodo and his companions by whom ever reads the books, the film may intrude on peoples visions of the books, but, it might be for the better.

[This message has been edited by ak (edited 06-10-2001).]

[STARKE]

Books allow you to understand exactly how the character is feeling, what he is thinking etc.
This lets you understand a character better.

Movies allow you to see and hear things perfectly. Instead of a 3 page description, you can see it in a second of film.

So, Tolkien's words will be replaced with someone else's pictures. If Tolkien was directing the movie, I might have different things to say.


Anyway, things like this have a bad past in Hollywood.

[ak]

...luckily Peter Jackson is the right director for the job then.

[STARKE]

Because we all know, Tolkien was reincarnated as Peter Jackson.

[choicebro2001]

look I don't think it is unfair to say THAT WE MAY WANT TO WATCH THE FREAKIN FILMS BEFORE WE SAY IF THEY ARE SHIT OR NOT! sorry but it's true.

[ak]

Starke, i think, you need to watch a few Peter Jackson films before you can understand why he is the best for the job.

[Scorchlord]

I think you definitely should read the books before seeing the movie. The visual experience will only help to accentuate what you read.

[ak]

I think Peter Jackson is doing what John Howe and several other Tolkien artists have done, which is bringing a vision to people to give them an idea of how epic the whole story is in a visual sense.
I think the books will become more popular in the sense that the visuals will help people in imaganing Middle Earth in the way it was meant.

[STARKE]

I'm not saying Jackson isn't a good director, I liked Heavenly Creatures.
But the fact stands, Peter Jackson IS NOT Tolkien.

And I'm not saying good books haven't been turned into good movies. But when they do, they are almost always seriously changed.

[ak]

Listen, not even Tolkien had a difinitive version of the world he had created, its impossible, he just had his vision of it, his vision of middle earth, now, so many other many, many millions of people around the world share their own.
but, it has been the general consensus that Jackson has suited their personal vision of Middle Earth frighteningly well, andas Peter Jackson had said countless times - It is his personal vision, like everyone else has a personal vision, he is just trying to bring it to the screen in as passionate way as possible, and as best a way as possible.

These are not official films, but someones idea of what they should be.

[BuddhaMonk]

You're right Starke, Peter Jackson is not Tolkien. Why in the world would that matter? Because Tolkien was an excellent writer he can film the best version of his movie? Have you seen Stephen King's version of "The Shining?" It may be more true to the original book, but that doesn't mean it's better now does it?

[claire]

If the movies are as good as the books, so.. no problems, LOTR will rock!

[freesafetyblitz]

damn, you really hate midgets!?!?! I love 'em

[freesafetyblitz]

Clare, what the hell are you reading for, when you can just watch the movie? What's wrong with all of you book-readers? Try to keep your eyes on the screen. It's what's made America so great!!

[STARKE]

I don't hate midgets, but the contrast between them and normal sized humans is distracting.

Tolkien might not have been able to film it well, but at least he could make sure his vision wasn't torn apart.

The Shining - Kubrick
and the book The Shining are very, very different
Kubrick tore apart King's book....BUT he did it in his own way, by doing this.
So instead of seeing King's vision on film, we get Kubricks (which is better imo)

The difference is, they both had genius in them.
Peter Jackson hasn't done anything to compare him to Kubrick yet.

[Scorchlord]

I liked King's more comprehensive version of the film better. Jack Nicholson's overacting ruined that movie.

[BuddhaMonk]

Starke, who has done anything to put themselves in Kubrick's class? No one, so don't bother looking. What I'm saying is that novelists sometimes are too dedicated to their original work. I love quite a few of Stephen King's books but some of the dialogue wouldn't sound right spoken out loud. It's a different medium. Film is collaborative, everyone working together, so you can't put it all on one person anyway.

[ak]

To me Kubrick was a wholly unaccessable, nonsense director who made films for those who do not understand them, so, those people like them. (Kubrick admitted to not even knowing what 2001 meant). Although i very much like Dr Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket.
Different directors have strenghts in different areas, and it is not fair to compare.
Kubrick might have been an ok director, but no way would he have been suitable for LOTR.

[BuddhaMonk]

He seems unaccessable because he doesn't care about you. He's making the film as he sees it, that's what good directors do. And I readily admit that 2001 is difficult to endure if you're not fascinated by the technical aspects of filmmaking. But that's not the point. Kubrick WAS a tremendous talent when it came to actual film, the best ever IMHO. But he doesn't make films that connect emotionally with me very often. And I don't think he would be a good director for LOTR because I don't know of any interest he had in it. And I would like to see where Kubrick stated that he didn't know what was going on in 2001. I've read interviews with Arthur Clarke (Co-creator and writer) and he was amazed at how much Kubrick understood about space and the whole star child ending. Just curious.

[STARKE]

I'd like to see Kubricks interpretation of LOTR, myself. Or maybe Lucas.

[ak]

Buddha Monk....I respect the fact that he knew a lot of science and space, but i read in an issue of Empire film magazine, it was a genre special edition infact, on sci fi, and there he stated that he did not understand where the film went or what it was trying to say.

[Scorchlord]

I thoroughly enjoy 2001 and A Clockwork Orange, but those are really the only Kubrick movies I like.

George Lucas taking a stab at LOTR? Oh, heavens no. He'd butcher it.

[BuddhaMonk]

That's cool, ak, I just wanted to know. It would probably concern me, except that Kubrick did a lot of things that I don't understand, and I guess maybe he didn't either. No biggie. Starke, why would you want to see a Kubrick version of LOTR? Wouldn't it have the same problems for you that you stated earlier? It's just another guy who didn't create the story and characters jumping in and messing with it. Or is it that, being that Tolkien is dead, you are the ultimate authority on LOTR and you don't like Peter Jackson?
...And on another note, Lucas couldn't do it because everyone would be looking for the similarities in the LOTR films with star wars and they wouldn't be allowed to be judged on their own merits.

[STARKE]

Kubrick and Lucas have proven themselves.
If Jackson screws up LOTR, it (LOTR series) will certainly lose respect in the publics' eyes.

Just think if "Dungeons and Dragons" came out when people still played the game...

Oops, forgot to add something

Like I said, if Kubrick did it, it would be very different from the book, we can't escape the fact that if the book is made into a movie, it will be changed. But as least Kubrick has a better % of making the movie good.

[This message has been edited by STARKE (edited 06-12-2001).]

[Tuukka]

"Kubrick and Lucas have proven themselves."

Hasn't Jackson? Heavenly Creatures and Forgotten Silver, anyone? And what about Phantom Menace? Does that film indicate that Lucas would be the right man for the job?

[STARKE]

Lucas and Kubrick have made many good movies, they've got my trust.
Well maybe not Kubrick anymore....

[STARKE]

Lucas and Kubrick have made many good movies, they've got my trust.
Well maybe not Kubrick anymore....

[Scorchlord]

Lucas has made 3 good movies, and they were all cut from same Star Wars cloth.

Howard the Duck? The Phantom Menace?

You have no reason at all to say that Kubrick could make LOTR better simply because he has a better percentage of making movies good. That's merely speculation and not proven in any way, shape, or form.

[ban all music]

Lucas has made American Graffitti, and A New Hope. Those are really the only good movies that he actually DIRECTED. He didn't direct the other two Star Wars, so you can't say that he has really proven himself. Jackson has directed more movies, and the tone that he shoots the films fit the series well...

[choicebro2001]

Fuck LUCAS. And have you noticed Kubrick is dead. Jackson really is going to make these films masterpieces, I mean come on how can you fuck up a classic story like that (okay maybe after watching the cartoon version you can) and the footage that has been released thus far is visually stunning. I'm glad its not Kubrick or Lucas they can move over we may just have a new cinematic 'god'.

[STARKE]

So according to all of you, Jackson > Kubrick?

[Parchai]

Well, I did'nt much like all the LOTR books when I read them, and I'm hard-pressed to believe the the movie is going to be as good as everyone is saying it will be.

[Tuukka]

"So according to all of you, Jackson > Kubrick?"

I don't think "all" of us have claimed so. However, most agree that Kubrick = dead. Jackson = alive.

Jackson > a dead corpse, when it comes to directing movies.

[ak]

I honestly can't believe why Kubrick was brought into this LOTR discussion, he has nothing to do with it, final!

..even if he did, the films would probably end up being totally un-accessible to children and adults.

Peter Jackson is the right director, if not the perfect director for the job.

[ANTBond007]

Lucas had directed several excellent films. A New Hope, of course, but are we forgetting about American Grafitti and THX-1138? Both were excellent. For a guy who's said to be unable to direct actors, he sure did a helluva job with Robert Duvall and Donald Pleasence.

As for Jackson -- I'm not sure. Heavenly Creatures wasn't my favorite film. Braindead was insultingly bad. And has anyone read his draft of King Kong? Eck! And this is the guy directing The Lord of the Rings?

If Lucas took a shot at it, you could guarantee would thing: It would look better than Jackson's version.

[Scorchlord]

Not necessarily. Lucas would probably have digitized half the landscape. Jackson's version looks to be perfectly set, thanks heavily to the beauty and appeal of New Zealand.

From what I've seen (and I've seen all the trailers, pictures, and reports) the fact that the set is actually mostly outside makes it visually astounding. I doubt Lucas would have gone to the troubles of filming 90% of the film in the real world.

[Tuukka]

I agree about American Graffiti and THX-1311.

But Phantom Menace looked artificial and static. Some of the sets and SFX were very cool, but the cinematography itself was very TV-esque, lacking in both energy and sophistication. I'm glad that LOTR won't be looking like plastic.

Heavenly Creatures in the other hand has better cinematography than any of Lucas's films. Way more creative, way better lighting and camerawork. Jackson knows how to be raw and energetic, but he also knows how to be beautiful and poetic. Lucas has never really been either, he has always travelled the middle-road.

As for screenwriting, both Heavenly Creatures and Forgotten Silver were exceptionally well written, even if they are too extraordinary films to appeal to everyone.

Braindead should be critized as a representative of it's genre. It's one of the very best splatter films ever made. Maybe even the best. I'm not a fan of the genre, but I understand why splatter fans rate it so high... Even Joblo gives the film 8,5/10. I have to admit that I think Bad Taste is just a bad film, but even that was an achievement if you consider that PJ made it practicly with no money.

And Jackson is great with actors.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 06-15-2001).]

[Tuukka]

BTW, I think it's unnecessarily to even argue about whether someone would be a better choice than Jackson. Nobody else could have been chosen for these films, since nobody "chose" Jackson in the first place.

Jackson has dreamed of doing this project since he was a kid. He wrote the script. He organized the financing. He chose the actors. The effects are being done by his own effects company. He was behind the idea to shoot films in NZ (perfect location).He persuaded money-people to make three films instead of one.

Nobody else has been committed enough to get this project going. Nobody chose Jackson. He chose himself and worked to make his dream come true. This has always been his personal crusade and he is the only one who has been un-replacable in this project.

So the whole argument is totally pointless. Without PJ there would be no LOTR films. There is no other alternative than Jackson, there never was.

Neither Kubrick or Lucas have ever been committed or interested enough to make LOTR as films.

[ak]

..i totally agree with Tuukka (again).

[freesafetyblitz]

All I'm gonna say is Kubrick is NOT the man!