Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Idiot film makers

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Fellowship of the Ring > Idiot film makers   [1] [2] >>
I'm too am sorry Ross, but PJ needed to strengthen the female character's part to bring in the paying, giggly teeny-boppers in order to have funds enough to complete the final two installments of the movies.

I also fail to see why "Anduril", the reforged "Narsil", didn't leave Rivendel with Aragorn. Maybe we will find out in PJ's TTT.
Well we can only hope, can't we...
Remember everyone, the majority of people who are going to see these movies have never read any of Tolkien's books. If you try to look at the film objectively, most , granted not all, but most of the changes make perfect sense. I know the movie's not perfect, but it's much closer to perfect than I ever dared to imagine it would be. And to say that FotR doesn't stick even remotely to the storyline is irrational and just plain wrong. Anyone who was expecting a flawless, scene for scene and word for word translation of the book was seriously deluding themselves. Such a movie is, in a word, impossible.
Movies adapted from books rarely follow the book to the letter. The name of the game in the movie business is money. It costs far more money to produce a movie than to publish a book so some concessions must be made to appeal to the masses. I have to say that even with the changes I really did enjoy PJ's LOTR. I get a different experience from the book and the movie and feel richer for it. Read Smilie
I have seen far worse hatchet jobs with adaptations.
PJ's version wasn't anyway near a hatchet job; what he covered followed the book very well and the inconsistencies were usually there to cover the parts missing due to time restraints. He did a very good job and I doubt if anyone will ever make a better movie version of FOTR, nor even TTT and ROTK. So there. Tongue Smilie Cool Smilie
I had waited twenty years for someone to make this film and I must admit I was nervous about watching it the first time incase it had been done badly. I was disappointed about losing Glorfindel because he has always been one of my favourite characters (and he got stabbed in the back by Legolas in the cartoon version in the 80's). I didn't expect to see any sign of Tom either, so wasn't too disappointed when I didn't.
What I really didn't want to see, however, (and I had heard several rumours that I would) was Boromir surviving and being in all three parts at the expense of Faramir. One of my friends really believed this would be the case and it was quite amusing to hear his startled croak when the first arrow sunk into Boromir's chest.
So, Glorfindel aside, I really enjoyed the movie and came out of it actually feeling as though I had just achieved one of my life's ambitions.
I can hardly wait to see the next two.... and please, please PJ go and do the Hobbit afterwards too.
I remember seeing an interview with Sean Astin right around the time FotR first hit the theaters. He said he told PJ, only half jokingly I think, that if the LotR trilogy was a big success he (Sean Astin) wanted to direct a live action movie of the Hobbit. Again, I'm not sure how serious he was and I don't know exactly how much directing experience he has ( I know he has at least some) but that would be very cool. I think The Hobbit would be easier to translate to the screen than LotR. And I think it would work best if (go ahead and hate me if you like) they had all the same actors reprise their roles. Paranoid Smilie

As to whether or not a Hobbit movie will get made, I'm betting it will. I'll be very surprised if the next two films don't surpass FotR in ticket sales due to the fact that so many people waited for the video release. That was quite a cliffhanger at the end of FotR and people are going to be anxious to see what happens next. Not to mention the value of critical acclaim. There's a lot more potential in TTT and RotK and I'm confident PJ won't let us down. Paranoid Smilie Besides, everyone loves epic battle sequences and we've still got Helm's Deep and the Battle of Pelennor Fields ahead of us! WOOHOO! Jumping Flame Smilie

But I digress.

Based on the fact that in the end LotR will probably rake in billions of dollars for New Line, we are almost guaranteed The Hobbit and, maybe, if we're really lucky fanboys/girls ...a series of films based on the Sil! Ok, ok, I know ...that's just crazy talk. But you can't blame a fanboy for wishing... Elf Winking Smilie
Quote:
I think The Hobbit would be easier to translate to the screen than LotR. And I think it would work best if (go ahead and hate me if you like) they had all the same actors reprise their roles.


So you want Ian Holm to play a young Bilbo? How the heck is that gonna work Prog?
They will send Professor Peabody and Sherman in their 'way back machine' to circa 1979 and bring Ian Holm back to 2003 for the filming as soon as he will have finished playing Bilbo in that excellent BBC Radio Series. Cool Smilie

For those that don't remember Professor Peabody and his boy Sherman, they had their own segment on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, which was almost as much fun as Fractured Fairy Tales and Duddly Doright of the Mounties.
Point well taken. So then, who would be best to play young Bilbo? Ewan McGregor? Elf Rolling Eyes Smilie
Actor to play Bilbo? Why not Ian Holm? He looked pretty good in the Prologue of the Movie...

Since this is a thread for complaining about missing characters, may I once again take the opportunity to moan about the mutilation to my beloved Elrond? It marred the whole film experience for me. Very Sad Smilie

It could also make things awkward for The Hobbit movie...would angry, anal, sexually frustrated (according to Hugo Weaving) Elrond bother to help a bunch of dwarves with a treasure map? hmmmmm....

Maybe they will subsitiute Glorfindel for the part... Big Laugh Smilie
Quote:
Maybe they will subsitiute Glorfindel for the part...


Nice thought, Allyssa, but as they haven't managed to play him in his own role in either PJ's or the eighties cartoon version of LOTR, I somehow suspect he'd be overlooked in the Hobbit too. And if they needed to have the obligitory leading lady, I think Bilbo would have to be female. Shocked Smilie
Quote:
They will send Professor Peabody and Sherman in their 'way back machine' to circa 1979 and bring Ian Holm back to 2003 for the filming as soon as he will have finished playing Bilbo in that excellent BBC Radio Series. Cool Smilie


I think you'll find he was Frodo...
yep, Ian Holmes played Frodo in the BBC radio production.
Of course you are right about Frodo in their version of LOTR. Got The Blues Smilie

So Angry Smilie But now you have gone and done it, forced me to go dig out my copy of their version of The Hobbit to see just who played Bilbo. It is buried behind my bed beneath many magazines and books, if the spiders haven't run off with it, that is. Big Laugh Smilie
Wasn't that one read by the same bloke who played Merlin in the film Excalibur?
Quote:
... their version of The Hobbit to see just who played Bilbo.
Bilbo was played by Paul Daneman and Gandalf was plated by Heron Carvic in the BBC Radio dramatization of the The Hobbit.

Now I have to go back and find out who actually played Bilbo in their (BBCs) LOTR.



[Edited on 7/9/2002 by Grondmaster]
Quote:
Now I have to go back and find out who actually played Bilbo in their (BBCs) LOTR.
John LeMesurier played Bilbo.

Michael Hordern played Gandalf.
But that's radio series, right? So you only hear the voices, you don't see if they're kinda hobbit-like. Or wizard-like. Big Smile Smilie

I think it is best to take the same actors for the Hobbit film. Otherwise you might confuse the public too much. They all have a similar idea about the characters (what they look like and stuff) and putting other actors in the same roles would be quite a bit confusing. IMHO
The trouble is Tommie, that Sir Ian Holm is now 71 and the make up artists would be hard pressed to portray him as a 33 year old hobbit. It might also be hard for him to do the physical work required for the part of Bilbo. An 18-28 year old actor would be better for fulfilling both these attributes as well as drawing the teenie-boppers to box-office.

Now were the BBC radio Gandalf, Sir Michael Hordern still alive and in good health, he would have been great in that role in the films; he died in 1995. Besides, Sir Ian McKellen was more than satisfactory in the part, in fact he was excellent.

[Edited on 29/9/2002 by Grondmaster]
Got your point Grondy. Right as always, of course. Big Smile Smilie

McKellen did a fantastic job! So far... Wink Smilie
It certainly is quite annoying to LOTR purists - but you must remember that a movie is very different from a book. When making a movie out of a book, I feel that it is fair to grant the director some poetic license, especially in the case of LOTR. PJ wanted this movie to be accessible to people who haven't read the books as well, which means that you probably want to get away from too many (I hate to use this word) minor charactors such as Glorfindel (he's the one who rescued Frodo right? Or am I getting confused again? Well - you know what I mean) otherwise it would make it too confusing. Also it was a good way to introduce Arwen. I don't like to say it but Tolkien was very stuck in the whole 'gender roles' idea - he had few strong female characters and in the book Aragorn tells Eowyn that her place as the woman is in the home, etc. PJ just wanted to remedy this. PJ said that he knew that it wasn't going to please everyone, because in the end the movie was simply the interpretation of a few people - and we all have a different idea of the details of the story in our heads.
I think that overall it was a brilliant effort and it's certainly revived Tolkiens magic.
Your comment is valid, and I do not mean to sound rude or argumentative... I'm just pointing out that while these little changes are irksome, they probably have a reason to be there...
:-)
At least when we read the books we can relive every detail in our minds and let ourselves drift into the world of our imagination - which in the end far surpasses any film!
(then again for people who lack a lot of imagination, the film let them glimpse into that world)
sorry for rambling on a bit!
:-)
Welcome to the site, Alfirin. I missed Glorfindel, but I agree, you cannot have too many minor characters in a film like you can in a book.
Welcome to our forum Alfirin. Smile Smilie

One of the problems with "War and Peace" was the many names of the many, many characters. For expediency, when the movies of it came out, many of those characters were totally absent, and only the very main characters had their multiple names used. I find Tolkien and his movie makers followed Tolstoy and his in this. Cool Elf Smilie
Heya Alfirin!
Nice to see someone who has the same opinion as I haveSmile Smilie I agree with you and Val, you can`t overflood a movie with too many characters, that would just make ppl confused (those who haven`t read the books). I totally agree with you Wink Smilie

I`ve tried to tell this to my brother, but he is so dissapointed that PJ didn`t follow the book..I think he`s done a good job.
I'm sorry but this is utter *rubbish* (modified by Taz, don't swear pls, thx) If that gimp Pj ever comes anywhere near Manchester i will hunt him down and shuff his testicles right up his nostrils for ruining one of my favourite books. I just dare him to make a movie of The Silmarillion. Then he will really se me angry.
And as for saying that Tolfien portrayed weak female characters is utter nosense. some of his most enigmatic characters are female. There is noway anyone can argue with that just read the Silmarillion and the Unfinshed Tales.

[Edited on 9/10/2002 by Taz]
you be picking on my fellow countryman Very Sad Smilie
Well buhuhu, isn`t it too bad that Pj didn`t make the movie so that everyone could be pleased... Rolling Eyes Smilie

It doesn`t bother me if you don`t like my opinions, but you don`t have to get all grumpy over it.. I thought Alfirin had a good post and desided to agree with her. I`m sorry if this offends you in some way.
Let's keep it civil peoples. Orc Grinning Smilie
Ummm....to that hobbit movie thing....They'll find Bilbo somehow...BUT WHERE WILL THAY GET ALL THOPSE DWARFS FROM?(I can already see a huuuuuugge line of circus midgets waiting to be selected... Animated Wink Smilie )
Quote:
I just dare him to make a movie of The Silmarillion.
-maybe Arwen will appear also when the Ainur sing-doing a solo-or leading the elfs througfh Helcaraxe or,even better-play Morgoth. Big Laugh Smilie
-another not-so pleased-on Liv-Tyler-fan.
I didn't mean to offend you Ross - but you shoulden't take it so seriously! No one is asking you to like the movie, and you don't have to get so worked up about it. If you don't like it then don't see it again! And sure it would be great to have a 12-hr long movie that stuck by the book 100% for all the really die-hard LOTR fans... but who would watch that? No one that I know, and I know I woulden't.
:-)
Oh, and I did not mean that Tolkien had no strong female characters - just not many of them, eg. no female member in fellowship; so PJ wanted to give some bigger parts to them. (And since he has not made a movie of the Silmarillion or Unfinished tales I was not referring to the female characters in them - only in LOTR)
You make it seem like you have to accept the movie version as the official version now and that it 'ruined the books'. I think that's silly. If you don't have eenough imagination to read through the books again without being heavily influenced by the movie, then you didn't have enough imagination to properly enter Tolkiens Middle-earth anyway. Lots of people, including me, really enjoyed the movie and found it interesting to see another interpretation of the characters and story we enjoy so much.
Do you beleive you could make the movie any better? Do you think that if you did make a movie of it how you and only you wanted it, and sticking 100% to the words and story, that anyone would watch it? Lets congratulate PJ for his effort - just think - it could have been much worse than it is...
:-)
Please don't be offended ok? Its just a bit of fun...

(thanks Celebrian for sticking up for me)
Give me the money and i would make a better film. Tolkien did portray very strong femine characters in the Fellowship of the Ring. Take Galadriel, she has the strength of will to turn down the ring when offered to her. Yet if it was offered to any male characters even gandalf himself said he would most likely use it. Please, please, please if you are going to make a response please just think before you answer!
As for saying i don't have imagination enough to fully envelope myself in the entirety of Arda (not just Middle-Earth) is just foolish. I wouldn't of had a problem with adding scenes just as long as he didn't change others. i understand the need to miss certain scenes out completly. The director chose to miss out the scene in which Galadriel shows her power in favour of some half backed scene with Arwen meeting Aragorn in the wild and Narsil being displayed in Imladris (why is it not being carried by Aragorn).
Please people, make your discussions pro and con without getting personal. Thankyou. Lighening Smilie Tigger Smilie
Sorry Grondmaster - and Ross as well.
I tend to be very stubborn and don't give up an arguement easily! Forgive me for my rudeness!
Truce, Ross?
Wink Smilie
(my apologies to all who had to read through this mess - everyone has different opinions and me and Ross must accept this because I don't think we're going to change each others!)
You`re welcome Alfirin and I still agree with you. I notice that we share opinion on several things...good for us! Weeeee!!!

-Celeb keeping it sivil-
I am also sorry Alfrin. i agree to disagree (though I am still right - tee hee).

Give freely, but give of your own!
Dammit, they butchered Glorfindel!!! Arwen can't fight the Nazgul all alone, after all. What they need is an Elf-lord!!!
Yes, poor old Glorfindel always seems to get short shift in adaptations of LOTR.
Thank you someone has finally agreed with me. Tar-Aldarion beware youre wife and daughter.

[Edited on 28/10/2002 by Ross]
Quote:
I think the way he put Frodo in danger of the Nazgul right away, instead of waiting for years,
is an example of the good work he did in getting the story going without wasting time on unimportat details.

A movie is different from a book which may be closed, put away and returned to a month after... A movie must catch the attention of spectators during his whole projection. In this sense you may be right Anilorak. But the substitution of a young Frodo for a 50 year old Frodo from the book changed a large part of the postBody given us by the book, namely, that "not all that is gold must glitter". A young handsome hero instead of an elderly fat 50 years old... this is so cheap!... a step back towards these silly black-and-white schemes where heroes must be young and beautiful, and villains - disgustingly ugly...
But who can say? Perhaps hobbits look like they're in their early twenties when they're in their fifties. We know they age more slowly then men, with the exception of the Dunedain. When we see Bilbo at 111 he looks very much to be in his sixties, though that is due in part to the Ring.

As far as heroes being young and beautiful, that can be explained with one word... marketing. Though it should be pointed out that not all film villains are disgustingly ugly... at least on the outside.
Quote:
As far as heroes being young and beautiful, that can be explained with one word... marketing. Though it should be pointed out that not all film villains are disgustingly ugly... at least on the outside.
Marketing! Yes, that is why we got the too young Frodo and an adventuring Arwen. As for ugly villians, Frodo put it best to Strider in The Prancing Pony's parlour:
Quote:
You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would–well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.'
I never brought into the question that glorfindel need to be male. People keep on insisting on useing the lame arguement of Tolkien not being able to portray strong female characters. Yet again I seem to need to point out that some of his most strong characters are female.
Its like when people try to make out Tolkien was racist. He wasn't but he did realisticly portray characters as racist. If you notice the first fathers of men made friends with elves why would they have done this if he was racist. Orcs are elves who have been corrupted and turned evil by Morgorth. The Pukel-men (Unfinished Tales) who were counted amoung the Dunedain and the corsairs bouth either refused to fight and had there spirits wander the earth until an oath was fulfiled or started to worship the dark lord.
I heard that Eowyn will get to lop Ugluk's head. I don't know about you but I was looking forward to Eomer having that honor!
Well, I think I will continue to disagree here...
Quote:
They can't put a 50 year old man as a protagonist in this kind of movie and expect it to be a success. They needed to cast actors which would be appealing and entertaining to the spectators

I am not so sure it is true. Look at the success of the movie "The gladiator!" Russell Crowe is most emphatically not a male beauty, a pretty Ken ready for a pretty Barbie! But he was able to move deeply the audience by his superb play and the film was a success!
As for LOTR, the editors of the book also were afraid it will not prove to be a commercial success. But it was!!! I'm convinced that if Tolkien thought how to please his readers (and in particular an AVERAGE READER) he would never succeed to win our hearts. Because if one cares above all for the marketing success, this is clearly seen in the final product. And for me pesonally much of pleasure is gone, because I feel somebody is manipulating my emotions, my feelings, just to gain money for himself. He is selling me a product, and not giving me freely a gift of his heart...
And in LOTR: The Two Towers, Frodo gets his face dirty, so he doesn't look quite as much like a Mama's boy, or a lap dog whom all the teeny-boppers wish to possess. Elf Winking Smilie
Well said Grondy!!!
How can I insert an icon? I wanted here the one with the thumb up... but I cannot insert it!
Eryan: To the left of your Message Input window should be ten smilies with a link below to many more. Position your cursor in the postBody window where you want the smilie to be placed and then just click on your choice of smilie and the words that signify it, should appear where your cursor was. Next ensure that "Disable smilies?" at the bottom of the input window has not been checked. And finally click "Preview Post" to check that you got the right smilie and it is where you wanted it. Make any changes in the new input box below your previewed post or use the back arrow to return to the original page. Cool Elf Smilie

If you are using the stripped down version (text) only, then you may not be able to use the smilies. Can any of you who use it speak to thisQuestion Smilie
Thanks Grondy, but smilies work for me already, both prinicipal ten smilies, and Big Smile Smilie additional smilies... Here is the evidence! Big Smile Smilie
What I cannot insert are ICONS - when I am writing my posts, they are shown above the empty place for the text of my post. I tried various tricks, but nothing worked so far... Big Smile Smilie
Oh, well if you go back and look at your post of 30/10/2002 at 11:13, you will see the thumbs up icon was attached at the beginning of your post; it just doesn't show up in the preview mode, and never in the body of your text. I had thought you had wanted the thumbs up smilie because I had already seen your thumbs up icon. Elf Confused Smilie

Isn't mis-communication great, it can end friendships, cause wars, and lead to multiple posts about next to nothing. Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
  [1] [2] >>