PJ talks about the sequels...not good news.

[PRH]

You may not want to read this if you are avoiding SPOILERS! I'm warning you now:

This is a fan's report from a Q&A PJ held at a Barnes&Noble in NYC -

http://www.theonering.net/rumour_mill/rpg/viewer/main/3C770EF10003332C.html

INFO FROM THE NYC Barnes & Noble event

The whole q&a was interesting. Peter imparted the information about the DVD and trailer which we've heard before. He did say that every theater still screening FOTR on March 22nd will be sent a new final reel containing the 3 1/2 minute preview of TTT which will feature some "amazing" things. He was quite adamant that this preview be seen only in the theater, as a present to the fans who have seen the movie multiple times. A 1 minute proper trailer will be aired in theaters and on television later in the year.

Also, he said that the deluxe DVD -- not "director's" cut -- will be out in the fall, and will contain the extra 30 minutes. Specifically the "gift giving" scene, more of the Legolas/Gimli relationship, some extra development of Aragorn's character, and additional character development in general.

His objection to the phrase "director's cut" seems based on a fear of implying that the theatrical release did not meet his approval. However, he went on to say that he impressed upon New Line the need to get the gift giving scene 'out there' so that the audience will understand the origin of the gifts which will be come important later on in the story. He specifically referred to the "rope" and the "phial."

He was very considerate in explaining that fans will encounter greater story alteration in TTT. He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film. Consequently, he says that he, Fran, and Phillipa wrote additional scenes expanding upon the Frodo, Sam, Gollum triangle, and that Faramir will also have an increased role in the film. No further explanation than that, tho.

Shelob will not make an appearance until ROTK, but he says the Ents are "awesome" and that we will get to see them storm Isengard in TTT, rather than hear about it after the fact.

The scouring of the shire is out. PJ said it simply was not practical to retain it, as the story arc is rooted in Frodo's quest to destroy the ring. He said that while understanding the reasons -- personal and literal -- that the passage was important to Tolkien, that it adds an unnecessary coda to the story that he had always, even as a reader, found "awkward." He said that the scenes in Galadriel's mirror were his way of paying "homage" to the material, as showing the possible results if the quest should fail. He gave no indication of how he was going to get around this in the final movie, but we should probably start speculating now, as it seems certain.

He gave quite a few details, which we've read in various places, about the process of motion capturing Andy SerkisSerkis' movements which will become the "skelatal foundation" of the CG Gollum. He said that in many ways SerkisSerkis' performance is so good, it's a shame that Gollum has to be CG. All the same, he implied that we will be blown away. Additionally, he said that they are still finding gaps in the story as they edit, which will require "pick up" filming both this year and next, to complete scenes as yet unwritten, to flesh out both TTT and ROTK.* A final word on editing, Fran said that the script for TTT was written to intercut between the three main fields of action: Merry/Pippin/Ents, Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli, and Frodo/Sam/Gollum. Although they are not yet near completion of cutting the film, PJ indicated that this will probably be the finished result, rather than following Tolkien's strict division of the action.

Howard Shore, although not questioned closely, was quite open about the fear and challenges of taking on so huge of a project. One thing I forgot to mention above, Shore will be composing and recording an additional 30 minutes of music for the DVD, rather than recycling themes from the completed score of FOTR. PJ cited this as yet another example of how they are breaking all the rules of what is usually done in the movie machine.


I cut out some stuff that was mostly just gushing over PJ.

[bunnywhippit]

Oh, i just read all this over at OneRing a few moments ago. The scouring is out! Ahhhhhhhhhhh... I wonder how they are going to pull the whole thing together at the end then.

And not enough material in TTT but then they shove Shelob into RotK? Okaaaaay. Ah well, i'm still willing to keep an open mind! :D

[Dain Ironfoot]

i agree...

[PRH]

And not enough material in TTT but then they shove Shelob into RotK?

I know. How can he say that when ROTK is the shortest book!? I guess he thinks it has the most 'fluff?' I don't know...

it [scouring] adds an unnecessary coda to the story that he had always, even as a reader, found "awkward."

This is just utter blasphemy.

I'm starting to sympathize with RW's semtiments on PJ (Happy b-day RW -- there's your present; a partial convert). I get the feeling he started out wanting to make his idea of a good movie, then they moved towards the "no major changes" thing when they were deep into the book and now when it really comes down to it, he doesn't trust the material and is back to his idea of a good movie.

[PRH]

Here's some more accounts of the event:

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1014492572

[Thorin]

Quote:
"He was very considerate in explaining that fans will encounter greater story alteration in TTT. He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film. Consequently, he says that he, Fran, and Phillipa wrote additional scenes expanding upon the Frodo, Sam, Gollum triangle, and that Faramir will also have an increased role in the film. No further explanation than that, tho."


I find that hard to believe that "TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film???"

1) Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas' orc chase
2) Frodo and Sam and Gollum's adventures through the Dead Marshes and the gate of Morannon
3) Faramir and Ithilien
4) Ents, Fangorn forest and Ent attack on Orthanc
5) Theoden and Eomer
6) Helm's Deep
7) Saruman and Orthanc
8) Gandalf and Saruman
9) Aragorn and Paths of the Dead
10) Gandalf and Pippin in Minas Tirith

You've got to be kidding me that this (DONE RIGHT!!!!) is not enough material for a movie...It all sounds like another lame excuse to add in PJ's own "interpretation" and pawn it off to the ignorant public and even more ignorant media that this is more "straight from the writings of JRR himself, praise God!!" material...DOWN WITH PJ!!!

:mad:

[Bill the Pony]

Oh dear, poor FADs. From now on their argument that something was left out because of time-constraints is no longer valid. PJ himself says so: The book is not long enough to fill three movies!
The only reason for leaving out Tom B, is that PJ wanted a decent cliff-hanger with Frodo and Sam going off. Otherwise he could have just ended at the end of lorien, and have enough material for the TT, without needing to invent stuff.
He had better not have left out ANYTHING in the other two movies...(oh, but he did already, didn't he?)

[ReadWryt]

I guess I'm the only "Purist Jerk" who isn't upset about leaving Tom B. and The Scouring of the Shire out of the movie...or at least in the tiny minority, but it actually makes a lot of sense cinematically. The Scouring works great in the book because no matter where in the book you stop reading you want more, but in the Movie the Scouring would end up being a major lul in the pace of the story. The only way that P.J. could have left it in is to spice it up with a bunch of adventure action that people would have been angry about anyways...

As for Tom B., well he is so inconsequential to the success of the Fellowship that including him would have left the folks who hadn't read the books scratching their heads wondering why he had been included in the first place...But then these are just my opinion...

[PRH]

I think the scouring would fit into the movie if it is downplayed quite a bit. There would probably have to be narration to minimize (or eliminate) the dialog. The only scene with actual dialog would be the meeting with Saruman.

PJ cited this as yet another example of how they are breaking all the rules of what is usually done in the movie machine.

Why not break with the movie formula while you're at it? PJ states that the only reason it's in the book it to reflect JRRT's semtiments about the industrialization of the English countryside. No. It plays a very important part to show how far the hobbits (esp. Merry & Pippin) have come in their maturity and learning.

The scouring is the real ending of the War of the Ring. If you don't include it in the movie, you're not making a movie about the War of the Ring - you're just making a movie about the destruction of the Ring. How much of the book revolved around the destruction of the Ring? - the entire FOTR then only half of the next two volumes! There's so much more to the book than just the quest to destroy the Ring so the movie should treat it as such!

This just makes me mad because I feel like I'm gonna be sitting there at the end of ROTK feeling about the same as the end of the Rankin/Bass version. Maybe it'll all be told in flashback by a minstrel while celebrating Bilbo's 130th birthday. I know the scouring is something that doesn't typically fit into the movie formula but it's very important to the story JRRT wrote so PJ should just work it out the best he can and just do it.

At the very least, put it on a special edition DVD.

[Grond]

Alas, I had such high hopes for the next two films and PJ is already warning me to "fasten my seat belt because I won't like the alterations." Darn, I so hoped that he would pull the rabbit out of the hat. Oh well, I'll wait to judge until I see how good or bad it is but now I'm waiting in a negative way instead of a positive one. :(

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Grond
Alas, I had such high hopes for the next two films and PJ is already warning me to "fasten my seat belt because I won't like the alterations." Darn, I so hoped that he would pull the rabbit out of the hat. Oh well, I'll wait to judge until I see how good or bad it is but now I'm waiting in a negative way instead of a positive one. :(

Welcome to the dark side, Grond....It's nice and black over here...heh heh heh.

Why should PJ include the SOS? He hasn't been staying as true as he was claiming to be...trading accuracy for a better cinematic experience...Why would he 'spoil' his movie now by putting that in? It only makes sense not to include SOS considering all the changes he has made already.

All fasiciousness aside, I agree with ReadWryt (and always have, RW since I joined in August, so you can include me in your minority) that SOS, from a cinematic perspective (especially PJ's) wouldn't work. You've already gotten to the climax of the story which movies are meant to end on....SOS would only be an anti-climax (unless you had some serious extra time and reel to play with to really finish the movie properly.)

As much as I like the SOS, I don't think it would work (especially the way that PJ has been doing the screenplay.)

[daisy]

I think thr item that irritates me the most about this interview report from P.J. is that he felt he needed to write new scenes for the next two films - even though there were many changes in FOTR, I can't think of a scene that was totally made up by P.J., meaning no basis whatsoever in the book - although if I am wrong, I'd love to get some examples.

As director he is going to pick and choose the scenes - and I am happy to hear about the ents - thank God - but I think he should stop short of getting his wife to write elf dialogue...:rolleyes:

[PRH]

Originally posted by Thorin
I find that hard to believe that "TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film???"

9) Aragorn and Paths of the Dead
10) Gandalf and Pippin in Minas Tirith

You've got to be kidding me that this (DONE RIGHT!!!!) is not enough material for a movie...

I feel the same way Thorin (not enough material indeed) but allow me to point out that #9 & 10 took place in ROTK.

[Thorin]

:rolleyes: Whooops! My mistake! What was I thinking?

[ReadWryt]

Once again I will say it, the penultimate truth about this matter...it's not so much what is being cut as it is what is being INVENTED. On the one hand we keep hearing statements about what has been left out being supported by the Cinematic Time Constraint defence, yet we keep hearing the same sources stating that there are new scenes created for the movies that never existed in the story. Lets face it, this should be refered to as "A film by Peter Jackson, loosely based on a book by J.R.R. Tolkien". It's the hubris of a man who has repeatedly claimed that he was going to be true to the "spirit of Tolkien", yet when it comes down to it the cutting of the scouring is actually self admitted ignorance of Tolkien's spirit, a man who repeatedly claimed he was making no "Major Changes" to the characters yet he displays his liberties with the characters at every turn, and who stated on several occasions that he was shooting all three movies at once, and act which he loved to point out "nobody" had ever performed in the past and yet now he informs us that "which will require "pick up" filming both this year and next, to complete scenes as yet unwritten, to flesh out both TTT and ROTK.". I don't see where he is doing anything but leading people to believe that he is more then he really is, a second rate Horror Movie director trying to do more then he is capable of...

[Ancalagon]

I have to say, I am rather tired arguing my same points in relation to the 'Fellowship' as that of 'Two Towers'.I have stated many times that it is never the removals that concern me, it simply boils down to the scriptwriters free-4-all with Tolkiens work that is most difficult to stomach. I guess by the 'Return of the King', I won't feel any different.

[Wood Elf]

I think it will be good (crosses fingers!). If FotR was that awesome with the changes and all, I think this will be awesome too. I have to admit though, I REALLY would have liked to see Shelob and that scene (one of the best scenes I think) this year. Ah well, I'm sure it will be good.

[Ancalagon]

'Awesome' of course being in the eye of the beholder!

[PRH]

As for these 'new' scenes. I guess we'll have to wait and see. PJ described one of the new scenes as a flashback to how Gollum got the Ring. While that might now be told in the course of TTT, I don't know if I'd call it an invention as it was described in FOTR. Perhaps all of these scenes are just based on material like this. Probably not. But a scene that just condenses several others (or explanations given) can take the place of several others which were cut without really counting as an addition. We'll see how this plays out.

[Grond]

PRH, I don't think many of us have problems with PJ illustrating things that actually happened in the book via an action scene instead of the narrative story as written by the author. Illustrating how Gollum got the Ring or the blossoming romance of Arwen are examples of things that I feel most of the "purists" would not begrudge PJ. What concerns us is adding additional scenes which never happened.

In the book Gollum found the Ring. In the book Aragorn and Arwen fell in love. In the book, Arwen did not appear in the TT. In the book, Saruman wasn't killed in the TT. Quotes that concern me most are "fleshing out characters." Hell, my favorite characters in the book do not need to be fleshed out. They are plenty fleshy enough as they are written. How will you flesh out Eowyn. Everyone on both the NPW and FAD side have constantly cited her as the prime example of why PJ's "interpretation" of Arwen in FotR was okay because JRRT made such strong female characters as Luthien and Eowyn. And now we have PJ adding more to her character to "flesh her out". Sorry but this hammer just doesn't get that at all. I actually thought he would do more in the next two movies to be truer to the book and it appears I will be disappointed yet again. :(

[PRH]

What if all you knew of the characters was based on what they'd said? The book gives us quite a bit of writing about what people are thinking or what they meant but if you whittle it down to just what was said plus facial expressions...maybe you're not left with enough in some cases for a fully fleshed out character. I can't give specific examples of this at the moment but it could explain the 'character fleshing out' thing.

btw-
And now we have PJ adding more to her character to "flesh her out".
I had not heard specifically that they were fleshing out Eowyn.

[Bucky]

Where's Harad when I need him?

I guess I'll just have to play 'devil's advocate' until Harad arrives.....

1. Excuse my ignorance, but what do you mean by 'flesh her out'? Is that like Pamela Anderson as Eowyn?

2. Readwryt: I can think of 700 million reasons why PJ is not a 'second rate horror movie director' anymore......

3. I can't wait until you guys see him standing there with the Oscar......

4. PRH: I know this was on the other thread, but, from what I saw, PJ accomplished the same goals as Tolkien in 'storytelling'. I didn't hear "Boo, Hiss" & see tomatoes being thrown at the screen as disgusted 'Purists' stormed out half way through TFOR or protested outside theatres. I saw people who wouldn't even move from their seat for 3 hours. I guess the 500 people at the theatres the 2 times I saw the movie were entertained under Tolkien's own criterea of why he wrote the 'tale'.

5. I agree (and figured out all on my own) that the 'Scouring of the Shire' would be a definite casaulty due to the climactic nature of the Ring destruction. That just makes perfect sense from the 100 year old movie formula.

6. If the movie went exactly by the book, it wouldn't be half as interesting to observe, would it? You may not like the way PJ interpretted it, but, he'll keep you surprised & on your toes.


7. I don't consider my self any of the labels like 'Purist' or 'LJBQ' or whatever it is, I just decided to go & enjoy it for what it was. If it was bad, I'd know. If it was good, I'd know. I simply 'checked my opinions at the door' as a very wise man once told me.

8. There were parts I didn't 'agree' with or wouldn't have chosen to do as PJ did.
For example, Strider getting caught by Arwen with the sword to his neck.
Or Elrond being such a sourpuss.
And, what was up with Elrond's comment about Aragorn "turning from that path (Kingship) a long time ago"? Obviously that's not the plot in the book...
Or, The Balrog breaking through stone. If the Balrog could do that, how was it imprisoned for 5400 years?
And, I certainly don't want him adding things in, unless it simple little things like the scene where Boromir is 'fencing' with Merry & Pippin in Hollin.

9. But, you know what? Who cares. The movie stands on it's own merits as a great movie, unless you want to nit-pick over every change.
Did you guys watch Jaws & say "Why didn't Matt Hooper sleep with Cheif Brody's wife & die at the end? Peter Benchley should get *^#@*&%......"?
Did you guys pick apart 'The Hobbit' cartoon like this too?

10. If you want an EXACT copy of the book, read the book. But wait a minute, didn't Tolkien rewrite chapter 5 of The Hobbit to make it fit with TLOR?
That Blasphemer!
I guess it's a good thing Tolkien didn't hold himself to the same standard you guys are holding PJ, or there never would have been a LOTR.
We'd all be on the 'Mr. Bliss' or 'Leaf by Niggle' discussion board.....

[Crumpled Stars]

What what what?? No Shelob in TTT? I haven't been nit-picky before about PJ's adaptation, but this seems strange to me. What better way to end TTT with a great cliffhanger- which undoubtedly would leave a lot of moviegoers in tears and wanting more- than to keep the ending as it is in the book, with Frodo poisoned by Shelob and Sam waiting in despair outside the Tower of Cirith Ungol? It just makes sense, doesn't it? After all, if they plan to call the movie "The Two Towers", shouldn't there be two towers in it? :o

[Bucky]

I agree with you on that one.

I think the answer is that Saruman is going to be killed in TTT & that will be the final conclusive scene.

[Eonwe]

I bet wormtounge cuts his head off, it falls, glances off a rail which splits, nearly hits gandalf's head, then it rolls over the stones until pippin picks it up.

Pippin later uses the head in front of the palantir to communicate with Sauron, via puppet-head Saruman. That nasty trickster fool of a took.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Crumpled Stars
What what what??After all, if they plan to call the movie "The Two Towers", shouldn't there be two towers in it? :o
Now you raise a good question: Which are the two towers? Obviously Orthanc is one, but is the other Minas Morgul or Cirith Ungol? All that happens at Minas Morgul is the Witch King leading the army out. More stuff eventually happens at Cirith Ungol, but it doesn't really even figure into TTT. They see it, but they never really get there until ROTK. Which are the two towers, and if one is Cirith Ungol, what sense does it make to name the movie TTT if they stop before Shelob?

[Harad]

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2787

Is about which two towers and references another thread about which two towers.

In the book, which consists of 2 "books" the 2 towers are:

1. Orthanc--the Rohan thread
2. Minas Morgul-the Frodo thread

but one could argue for Minas Tirith and the Barad Dur too. Tolkien apparently was hep to the ambiguity and didnt like the title upon reflection. So guess what: there is some latitude that PJ can play with....

[PRH]

Originally posted by Harad
In the book, which consists of 2 "books" the 2 towers are:

1. Orthanc--the Rohan thread
2. Minas Morgul-the Frodo thread

I just realized this morning that at the end of FOTR (3 separate volume version of LOTR) it explicitly states that the two towers are Orthanc and Morgul. Strange. It's a cool sounding name but how does the story really revolve around Morgul at all?

[baraka]

Originally posted by Bucky

10. If you want an EXACT copy of the book, read the book. But wait a minute, didn't Tolkien rewrite chapter 5 of The Hobbit to make it fit with TLOR?
That Blasphemer!
I guess it's a good thing Tolkien didn't hold himself to the same standard you guys are holding PJ, or there never would have been a LOTR.

Well, Tolkien wrote the book and it was his story so i guess you can say that if he wanted to make changes, it is his right.

[baraka]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
it simply boils down to the scriptwriters free-4-all with Tolkiens work that is most difficult to stomach. I guess by the 'Return of the King', I won't feel any different.

I agree. Some changes are totally unnecesary, like they changed the name of Bilbo´s book to There and Back Again: A Hobbit´s Tale

[DGoeij]

I've never made a million dollar (new Zealand, or US) movie, but not enough material to make a movie in TTT???

I guess the ripples of adaptation started in FOTR is causing major damage to TTT. Writing additional scenes, to fill up the movie?

I'm a bit worried here.

[Crumpled Stars]

Originally posted by PRH

I just realized this morning that at the end of FOTR (3 separate volume version of LOTR) it explicitly states that the two towers are Orthanc and Morgul. Strange. It's a cool sounding name but how does the story really revolve around Morgul at all?

Interesting. I had always assumed that they were Orthanc and Cirith Ungol; The rising action in Book 3 leads up to Saruman's defeat at Orthanc, and the rising action in book 4 leads to Frodo being taken into Cirith Ungol by the orcs. Oh well. Tolkien isn't here with us, unfortunately, so we can't argue with him about it. :p

[Harad]

Well, Tolkien wrote the book and it was his story so i guess you can say that if he wanted to make changes, it is his right.

And whose movie was it?

[Grond]

Since we are completely off topic, I will at the least, clear up the contention. The Two Towers, according to the author in letter #143 to his Rayner Unwin states,
"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading."

[baraka]

Originally posted by Harad


And whose movie was it?

But it was based on the books of JRRT. I could have accepted some changes if they were cleared by Christopher T.

[Harad]

CT could no more make a movie than...I could.

[baraka]

CT could no more make a movie than...I could.

I didn´t mean make the movies, just his view on the changes that PJ did in the movie. Who better than Christopher to have that pure Tolkien view.

[Harad]

I assume you have the same views as your father?

[baraka]

Not the same views, but i would think that Christopher views are the closest we will ever have of JRRT.

[PRH]

Every thread eventually goes off topic...
Originally posted by Grond
Since we are completely off topic, I will at the least, clear up the contention. The Two Towers, according to the author in letter #143 to his Rayner Unwin states,
"I am not at all happy about the title 'the Two Towers'. It must if there is any real reference in it to Vol II refer to Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol. But since there is so much made of the basic opposition of the Dark Tower and Minas Tirith, that seems very misleading."

Tolkien seems to contradict himself. At the end of FOTR it says:
The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by ORTHANC, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of MINAS MORGUL that guards the secret entrance to Mordor.
And it would seem that Tolkien wrote this passage, due to the elaborateness of it. Nevertheless, based on that letter this issue seems to boil down to a cool sounding title which doesn't have a strong meaning behind it.

[Grond]

Originally posted by PRH
Every thread eventually goes off topic...
Tolkien seems to contradict himself. At the end of FOTR it says

quote:
The second part is called The Two Towers, since the events recounted in it are dominated by ORTHANC, the citadel of Saruman, and the fortress of MINAS MORGUL that guards the secret entrance to Mordor.

And it would seem that Tolkien wrote this passage, due to the elaborateness of it. Nevertheless, based on that letter this issue seems to boil down to a cool sounding title which doesn't have a strong meaning behind it.Still off topic but....
It doesn't appear that Tolkien wrote the line you speak of. It appears to be an insertion by Houghton-Mifflin in there Americanization of the texts. It appears in my three oldest volumes of the trilogy (copyright 1954, 1965 & 1966 by JRRT and renewed in 1982 by the Estate.) It does not appear in the three new movie sets I recently bought in small and large paperback and in hardback. I believe these reflect the 1987 revisions by CT and that might explain the summaries removal.

None of my English copies have that verbage at all. So my assumption is that it was a Houghton-Mifflin insertion based on one of the letters he sent to them. He wasn't ever really definitive on the issue. If one looks at all of his letters, he really leaves it to the reader to decide. He said it could have been Orthanc and Minas Morgul, Orthanc and Cirith Ungol, Orthanc and Barad-dur or Barad-dur and Minas Tirith. So... there you go. :)

[PRH]

Originally posted by Grond
It doesn't appear that Tolkien wrote the line you speak of. It appears to be an insertion by Houghton-Mifflin in there Americanization of the texts.
Well whoever wrote it did a good job. That's the kind of 'spirit of Tolkien' writing PJ & Co. couldn't gotten away with.

An interesting side note: The first part of the passage used to be the phrase that ended the Bashki movie:

"Here ends the first part of the history of the War of the Ring"

Then in the DVD release they changed it to something like:

"The forces of evil were destroyed forever by the valiant friends of Frodo."

I guess that change somehow makes us overlook the fact that there was never a part 2.

[ssgrif]

To get back to the point:

Originally posted by PRH
He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film.

Ok, so PJ has stated clearly that TTT is not long enough for a movie. But why the heck did he remove the Shelob sections and place them into the ROTK?

Surely he's making the movie even shorter? Madness.

[ReadWryt]

ssgrif,

Well if one follows the Template of the first film then it could be assumed that he had to move Shelob to make room for some invented **** that he can't stand to part with but was none the less not in the book.

On a general note, it must be heartwrenching to the die hard P.J. fans who have been touting for so long what a fantastic job it was that he did shooting three movies at once, and how that had never been done before, to see Jackson admitting that he is headed back to New Zealand to finish SHOOTING his movie that was supposedly shot all at once. Feet of clay can be a bummer, especially when you always wear that same old crusty pair of hiking boots!

[Harad]

Jackson admitting that he is headed back to New Zealand to finish SHOOTING his movie

Anything and its converse is grounds for bashing.

"Look he's going back to do some additional shooting! Couldnt he get it right the first time?"

"Look. He was too egotistical (fat? shoeless?) to shoot any more after the first time, even tho he could have made improvements."

Jealousy rears its ugly head.

I dont know where Shelob is and I didnt want to know. There is no doubt that TTT is the shortest book, but then ROTK is not much longer. FOTR is by far the longest and furthermore contains all the exposition.

The more backstory and invention in the movie, AS LONG AS ITS IN THE SPIRIT OF LOTR, the better! Lets have a work of art that builds upon the masterpiece we already like. Slavish recapitulation is for...posters.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
The more backstory and invention in the movie, AS LONG AS ITS IN THE SPIRIT OF LOTR, the better! Lets have a work of art that builds upon the masterpiece we already like

So I was right....Harad, can't you figure out what you believe? Sounds pretty much what I thought you felt, yet you ambiguously state otherwise.

"A work of art that builds upon the mastepiece we already like?"

Yeah....If PJ at least did that, I might forgive him....However, the work of art is in making the book come alive, not adding to it, plus PJ will not only add his own fabrications, but change the existing ones as well....A masterpiece can stand alone....Who cares about what PJ thinks? Let him bring what's already there to the screen as best as possible.

[Harad]

Just plain wrong. PJ is not re-writing the book LOTR. He is making a movie. If you want a slavish rendition from the book to the movie, you will get a flop. A book and screenplay are different.

Furthermore I do not believe that Art ended when JRRT laid down his pen. I welcome new and interesting explications of things that JRRT did not flesh out, omitted entirely, or--blashpemy alert--or made imperfectly.

[Bucky]

I must say I agree with Harad on this(I always did like the underdog...).

Just because 'PJ' (sounds so chummy) has to film some more stuff, he screwed up?

Let's be REAL here.
My mind cannot even begin to comprehend how to make a movie, let alone TLOR.

What makes anybody think CT would know any better?
Did he collaborate on the Cartoon TLOR?
Gee, that was great....

Of course, I've never been one to use the old 'You can't even_____, so don't critcize the artist who's _____ing' line.
Anyone is entitled to their opinion, expert or laymen.....


BTW, off topic:
JRR wanted to call volume III "The War Of The Ring". Makes more sense as it doesn't give away any of the ending like ROTK does.

At least it wasn't called 'The Destruction of the Ring'......

And, if not the very imperfect 'The Two Towers', then what?
Any ideas?

'The Former Fellowship of the Ring'

Seriously, about the best I can think of is:

'The Treason of Isengard/The Black Gate Is Closed'

[baraka]

What makes anybody think CT would know any better?
Did he collaborate on the Cartoon TLOR?
Gee, that was great....

Did CT collaborate on the Cartoon TLOR? Which one?

CT would not have butchered the movie as much as PJ.:eek: Just my humble opinion.

Ho Tom Bombadil, Ho Tom Bombadillo.:p

[Snaga]

A question about Christopher Tolkien seemed to annoy Peter just a little. But Mr. Jackson was very cordial and reasonably explained that the Tolkien's did not want to be exploited by the movie. There was no contact between himself and Christopher Tolkien; everything was handled by lawyers. Getting the Tolkien estate involved would have been messy anyway because their involvement would have been perceived as an endorsement of the movie, sort of making it into the 'official' LOTR movies. Peter argues that it would not have been in anyones best interest to have the Tolkien's involved because the 'power of veto' wouldn't have been granted to them (e.g. they wouldn't be able to control who was or was not cast for a certain role.)

This quote is from the same page as the original quote that started this thread and gives some insight into the CT question.

Anyway, I think we'd still find people cursing the name of CT for allowing any changes to come in. In addition, everyone would probably be cursing PJ for producing out-and-out bad films. Only the most jaundiced observer fails to recognise that, so far at least, PJ has produced an excellent film that is bringing people to read the books. If the film had been made by CT and PJ in some sort of tensional relationship with constant pulling in different directions, you can bet your house on the film being nowhere near as effective as cinema (even if it was more meticulous in sticking to the book).

I can't think of a worse outcome than a bad film that is utterly faithful to the book: it would have put people off the book for years to come.

Personally I can't see anything in this report to get really anxious about. The big news about Shelob is that she gets moved to RotK. PJ moved the Departure of Boromir, and that worked, so I will reserve judgement. I also suspect that some of the development between Gimli and Legolas will come to the fore, which I would welcome.

[Harad]

VoK!

If PJ fills out TTT with new inventions that shock and amaze,

Yes!

and pushes Shelob into ROTK...

Obviously we want it all..NOW..

But you dont always get what you want.
But you'll find sometime,
You just might get what you need.

[baraka]

If PJ fills out TTT with new inventions that shock and amaze,

If PJ made Galadriel appear in Helm´s Deep, it would certainly shock and amaze me!:)

[PRH]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
The big news about Shelob is that she gets moved to RotK. PJ moved the Departure of Boromir, and that worked, so I will reserve judgement.
I'd like to see the Shelob thing sooner but that's not my main problem with moving it to ROTK.

1) It wrecks the structure of the Frodo/Sam/Gollum thread. Gollum is a TTT character. He doesn't really figure into FOTR much. TTT starts with the taming of Smeagol and it ends with his betrayal. Then Gollum is not really seen again until Orodruin. Aside from that, what major event does PJ have to end the thread on? The army issuing from Morgul? Faramir setting them on their way again? Lost in the tunnel? These sound like pretty lame ways to end the movie.

2) Moving the Shelob encounter into ROTK will cut into the book ROTK story quite a bit. Does this mean the journey from Cirith Ungol to Orodruin will be cut down to almost nothing? Will there be no marching with the orcs? (Is this another thing PJ will dump like Stider's broken sword because he thinks people won't take it seriously?)

I don't know. They did a pretty good job making FOTR feel like a self-contained movie so I'll have to wait and see. I'm skeptical though.

[Greenleaf]

As much as I hate the idea of PJ cutting more out of the next two movies there is one thing that has not been mentioned yet. He (PJ) I aloud to do this. He never signed a contract saying that he wouldn't change anything. Let's face it guys, a book or really books like LOTR can not be made into movies without something getting cut. My experience has been this the better the book the harder it is to make a movie out if it. And LOTR is an awesome series. I am just happy that PJ is trying, if he weren’t we would be stuck with the animated version. Yeah the changes irk me (I for one I’m livid the Arwen has more scenes:mad: ) but all and all I am looking forwards to watching the best (so fare) movie about LOTR.

[baraka]

As much as I hate the idea of PJ cutting more out of the next two movies
I though that PJ had said that in the TTT book there was not enough material for a movie. If that is true, then why should he cut it!:(

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Harad
VoK!

If PJ fills out TTT with new inventions that shock and amaze,

Yes!

and pushes Shelob into ROTK...

Yes, and let's make Wormtongue look like Jar-Jar Binks! Lets make Arwen lead a league of elves to Rohan to help her beloved!!! Let's make Theodred come back from the dead to lead with Aragorn and Eomer...Let's make Eomer a hired dwarf!!!! Let's make Gimli shout out at the passing Rohirrim "Nobody rides by a dwarf!!!!"

And there will be Harad, waving his little pro-PJ/anti-Tolkien flag, praising PJ for doing such a great job on a movie that consists mostly of his own invention! AND give kudos for making LotR so much better!!!!

[Greenleaf]

Okaaay um.. Yeah I think some one need a breath of fresh air, and I would suggest a nice brisk stroll as well.

[Bucky]

Cyber Thorin is to PJ as
The Real Thorin was to Bilbo after he took the Arkenstone.....

But seriously folks, a couple thoughts:

Won't Liv Tyler look great at the head of the Army that marches to the Black Gate?

Da da dunt, chih......

As I have heard stated previously up here, Saruman will allegedly buy it in this flick (TTT).
So, there is your ending.
Either the Ents will get him, or Gandalf will spin him around until his brain flies out of his eyes.......

Putting Shelob in the last movie is a simple move to even out the material.
Remember, ROTK is by far the shortest book.
Take out everything past Aragorn's wedding to Arwen, the obvious 'And they lived happily ever after' ending, & you need to skim part of TTT to get enough material.

If TTT doesn't have enough material on it's own (possible smokescreen?), my 1st choice to add would be the Battles at the Fords of Isen where Theodred is slain.

[greypilgrim]

"The Two Towers doesn't have enough material on its own"?.....WHAT!!!

Poor, misguided souls who believe that deserve to be let down.

Even with the departure of Boromir included in the Fellowship movie, there is PLENTY to take from the 2 Towers to make a movie 5 hours long. P.J. just wanted to tell his own story, thats what I think.
Not enough material that HE LIKED, maybe.

Anyways, I agree with somebody a few pages back who basically said they didn't mind if the movie has differing versions on the story as written, different takes and events. The cave troll fight was one example that I can use. But it's like not a figuring part of the STORY, it's just that P.J. allowed the troll in the tomb-room, that's not too much change.
Arwen at the Ford bugged me. Frodo would have been better.
Arwen at Helms Deep may be interesting. But its like lies, the more you tell, the more you need them. The more he changes the story, the more he will need to change as the story goes on, you see what I'm saying?
Changes in the dialogue are a given.
Changes of major events, not so wise.
I feel a major shift coming in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, one that will be so different that it will change the course of the story until the end. Oh well, we will see what happens.

[baraka]

As I have heard stated previously up here, Saruman will allegedly buy it in this flick (TTT).
You are joking right, please tell me you are joking.:(

[Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Bucky
Cyber Thorin is to PJ as
Won't Liv Tyler look great at the head of the Army that marches to the Black Gate?
.

What!!!!!!!!! Tell me your joking!!! No she would not look great at the head of an army.:rolleyes:

[PRH]

Originally posted by baraka
You are joking right, please tell me you are joking.
Do you want to know?

[Chymaera]

PJ must have read the books but I don't think he really GOT the story.

TTT: Frodo/Sam/Gollum; meet, go to Black gates, head south to Morgul, meet Faramir, go to cross roads, close call with witch-king's army, meet Shelob.

TTT: Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas; Chase Uruki, meet Eomer, meet Gandlf, meet Theoden, to Helms Deep,

TTT: Merry/Pippen; captured by uruki, uruki meet Riders, escape, meet Treebeard, Entmoot, ents meet Saruman, Hurons save bacon at Helms Deep,

All meet at Orthanc, enprison Saruman, Nazguls,head for Minas Tirith.

If PJ can't see 4 hours of action and drama in that he's not trying

[Snaga]

I think the more serious problem is the lack of Frodo/Sam material in RotK. After all there's only 3 chapters vs many more for Aragorn/Merry/Pip etc.

In the book, JRRT gets one thread well ahead of the other. I don't see it as particularly wrong to even it up.

[Glaurung]

I have to say that I believe Peter Jackson knows exactly what he is doing. The guy is a professional filmmaker, no I'm not saying that he is infallible because nobody is, but I'd say he has looked at the scenes he has shot and, in attempting to edit them into two comprehensive and enjoyable films, is going to order them in the best possible way. Obviously some scenes are going to have to be cut or moved to provide a sense of "cinematic balance" to the whole thing. Would you prefer it if he did, for instance, have the Shelob scene at the end of the second film and yet have it absolutely ruin the whole pacing of the film? And talking about balance, how the hell could PJ possibly justify having Arwen featured so prominently in the first film and then just conveniently ignore her in the second film? He can't it just wouldn't make sense. He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it. You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Glaurung
...I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are excepting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided. You're right. It isn't the dark ages; however, portraying Arwen at Helm's Deep is no longer a distortion of a character, it is the creation of one. No female character of any kind appeared at Helm's Deep in the book. Using your logic, they should have just done an adaptation of Sword of Shannara or Wheel of Time and simply called it Lord of the Rings. Same difference.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Glaurung
And talking about balance, how the hell could PJ possibly justify having Arwen featured so prominently in the first film and then just conveniently ignore her in the second film? He can't it just wouldn't make sense. He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it.

Exactly my point and the point I've been trying to make since i first protested this..Because PJ made such a travesty of Arwen, he has no choice but to continue to do so to justify her revamped role to begin with....However, I DO say that is why she never should have been done the way she was in the first place.

You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are excepting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

Please.....It's not about political correctness or having a female image in the movie. It's about remaining true to the characters of the book that the movie claims to be based on, male or female. I'm sure most people who've read Tolkien didn't go to the movie saying, "Boy! I sure hope that there is a strong female presence in the movie!" I, and other fans of the book expect to see what we've read and identified with....a true rendition (as much as possible) to epic, LoTR. And most people who don't know anything about Tolkien probably couldn't have cared less if the Arwen part was not thrown in...I can't see any protest about the lack of female characters in movies, more then the lack of male characters in other movies....If people are gonna get so hung up on that, they don't know how to pick their movies, and they don't know how to be entertained.

[Snaga]

Glaurung

I agree, but as you will already have gathered, the Dark Ages have some ardent fans here.

[baraka]

He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it. You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.
Ok, i understand it, but i don´t like it. I would have liked to see Glorfindel instead.:(

But i think that PJ movie adaptation of LOTR was great.!

[PRH]

It probably would've spawned fewer changes if PJ had just made Aragorn marry Glorfindel at the end.

[baraka]

if PJ had just made Aragorn marry Glorfindel at the end.
Hmmmm.

[Glaurung]

Please.....It's not about political correctness or having a female image in the movie. It's about remaining true to the characters of the book that the movie claims to be based on, male or female. I'm sure most people who've read Tolkien didn't go to the movie saying, "Boy! I sure hope that there is a strong female presence in the movie!" I, and other fans of the book expect to see what we've read and identified with....a true rendition (as much as possible) to epic, LoTR. And most people who don't know anything about Tolkien probably couldn't have cared less if the Arwen part was not thrown in...I can't see any protest about the lack of female characters in movies, more then the lack of male characters in other movies....If people are gonna get so hung up on that, they don't know how to pick their movies, and they don't know how to be entertained.

Star Wars saga, Indiana Jones, Gladiator, Ben Hur, Braveheart, The Matrix: just a few examples of epic films where there is a substantial female presence to counterbalance the testosterone heavy plot. I agree, people don't go into the story expecting there to be a female dominated love story, because that's not what movies like these are about. However filmmakers do realize that it is profitable to put the love story angle in movies because there is, like it or not, a significant number of people out there who find such stuff appealing. Profit is one of the major reasons the Lord of the Rings movie ever got made. It is one of the major reasons why we have such a film to see today. Believe me PJ, who was ultimately in charge of making sure that the film did well financially, wouldn't have put the Arwen scenes in there if he didn't believe that it would serve to get more people into the theatres and therefore increase the profit margin. I would have been extremely surprised if I had went to see this movie and the Arwen sub plot had not been beefed up considerably. You see it is just good $$$ sense to put such a subplot in there, because that is what the general audience (not the hardcore audience) wants to see in a good film.

[Ged]

Originally posted by PRH:

He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film.

I think can understand what PJ means by this. It's not that there isn't a huge amount of action in TTT, perhaps there's as much or more so than in FOTR. The difference is that FOTR had to INTRODUCE everything, with the history, the background, the main characters etc. Some purists believe that this wasn't done very well. Okay, but for non-readers to make sense of everything it all had to be done.

Although TTT will have to stand on its own two feet it doesn't have this problem. Consequently, if it is just a continual sequence of action events it would seem a bit thin, a bit "sequelly" in fact.

As a film maker who DOES know his stuff, PJ realises the twists and turns and subtle changes he is going to have to make to ensure people come out of the TTT still excited for the ROTK.

[Ged]

VOK said:
I think the more serious problem is the lack of Frodo/Sam material in RotK. After all there's only 3 chapters vs many more for Aragorn/Merry/Pip etc.

Maybe that's why PJ is saving Shelob to ROTK.

(Admit haven't read whole thread, so apologies if you have already made this point.)

[Legolam]

I'm gonna be so disappointed if they move Shelob to ROTK. I was REALLY looking forward to leaving the cinema at the end of TTT with all my non-LOTR-loving friends in floods of tears because they think Frodo's dead (having read all the "Frodo lives" T-shirts etc). I could have then wound them up about it for a whole year.

As it is, they're going to have another lame ending to a film, just like FOTR, when no-one had a clue if it was finished or what the hell just happened. It would be great to leave everyone on a cliffhanger.

:mad:

[ReadWryt]

, if it is just a continual sequence of action events it would seem a bit thin, a bit "sequelly" in fact.

Doesn't this almost describe the FIRST movie?

He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film. Consequently, he says that he, Fran, and Phillipa wrote additional scenes expanding upon the Frodo, Sam, Gollum triangle, and that Faramir will also have an increased role in the film. No further explanation than that, tho. Shelob will not make an appearance until ROTK, but he says the Ents are "awesome" and that we will get to see them storm Isengard in TTT, rather than hear about it after the fact.

Wait, TTT is not long enough so lets cut out Shelob and insert stuff that wasn't in the book. This makes great sense...I'm STILL scratching my head over this.

You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

Maybe he should have thought about this 4 years ago when he was promising everyone that he would "...not be making any major changes in the characters...", or that he was "...making the films in the spirit of Tolkien's writings..."...as for the statement that this isn't the dark ages, I guess that the dark ages ended with "Saving Private Ryan" because that had not one Female lead character...no WONDER it did so poorly at the box office, along with Appocolypse Now, Laurence of Arabia, Hunt for Red October and U 571...All must have had their horrid box office failures due to their being made in the "Dark Ages" when there were few if any women in films...

[Thorin]

Yes, and don't forget "Twelve Angry Men", "Con Air", and the newly released "Black Hawk Down". All movies from the dark ages that have had critics and movie-goers alike ranting and raving against the fact that there were no, if any, female roles....I knew when I saw the quick blurb on the newspaper advertisement for "Black Hawk Down": "One of the best movies of the year! Except it could have been a better movie with a strong female lead!"...that the public knew exactly what it liked!!! :rolleyes:

[greypilgrim]

If you watch the 1978 cartoon Lord of the Rings (Bakshi), and then watch the 2001 movie (Jackson), you can tell who was the Tolkien fan.

P.J. admitted that he didn't read the books until he went to make the movie. He took scenes from the book that were climactic (flight to the ford) and COMPLETELY ALTERED THEM. that's just plain wrong.

At least there is a cartoon to watch and be happy with. If I had the money, I'd help Bakshi make a sequel to that cartoon, it would be more "in the spirit of Tolkien" than what we have today.

As for Shelob, it's cool if she's out until ROTK, because I think that the next movie will be mostly showing events aside from Frodo and Samwise. Probably ending their part of the story sometime before they even enter Mordor, maybe like the end of FOTR, them looking across the Emyn Muil, except they will be looking at the Tower of Cirith Ungol, from maybe the Cross Roads.

Peter Jackson just wanted to film his home country, and the story was secondary in his mind, I think. Otherwise , he would have kept it more real, and he is a fan of New Zealand, not Tolkien.

[ReadWryt]

"The Lord Of The Rings is big but it's such a wonderful property that it's worth spending five years of your life to do," said Jackson, talking at the International Festival of Fantasy Films in Brussels. "If it was anything other than Lord Of The Rings, I probably wouldn't do it, but it is such an amazing story and an amazing book that it's an honour and a privilege really.

"But I wasn't one of those total Lord Of The Rings aficionados. I read it when I was 18 and I didn't read it again until the whole idea of doing the film came up, 17 years later.


As for the Bakshi, I would rather see an Animated version then watch a bunch of poorly Rotoscoped actors myself, but that's just my taste...

[Ged]

I find it absolutely incredible that you guys can sit in this thread defending Bakshi's appalling version of (part of) LoTR.

My children watched it last week and even they were incredulous at how poorly it caught the mood of the book. And when you talk (ad nauseum) about the missings bits in PJ's film, how about the missing bits in Bakshi's treatment. Like Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas NOT meeting Eomer and the Riders of Rohan, like Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard and then completely dissapearing!

As I said before, you guys must have seen the cartoon version in your childhood. Well, I saw Scooby Doo in my childhood.

[Snaga]

Ged

You're right. I'd rather have a non-fan with the ability and the money to do a good job, than... Bakshi.

I mean for crying out loud he can't even make up his mind whether its 'Aruman' or 'Saruman'. I am finding hard to type I am laughing so much imagining the posts we would have had if PJ had produced something Bakshi-esque. Total outrage... with a few die hards desperately saying 'Yes but at least we kept Glorfindel...'

Whoops:rolleyes: Bakshi changed that to Legolas didn't he. The apostate!!!

[Grond]

Originally posted by Variag of Khand
Ged

You're right. I'd rather have a non-fan with the ability and the money to do a good job, than... Bakshi.

I mean for crying out loud he can't even make up his mind whether its 'Aruman' or 'Saruman'. I am finding hard to type I am laughing so much imagining the posts we would have had if PJ had produced something Bakshi-esque. Total outrage... with a few die hards desperately saying 'Yes but at least we kept Glorfindel...'

Whoops:rolleyes: Bakshi changed that to Legolas didn't he. The apostate!!! Of the two, only PJ captured the essence of Middle-earth; unfortunately, he was only slightly more successful in capturing the characters of Middle-earth. It could and should have been better and would have been had he not dickered with the plot line and characters so much. Still, it was a great movie and the next two will be just as good... just not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. :(

[ReadWryt]

Lets be objective here, how much of this lauded "essence of Middle-earth" was due to his wisely hiring two of the best known and most loved illustrators of Tolkien's works to do the Art Direction? Had they hired someone with original ideas who created an equally stunning world that was not as FAMILLIAR to people and not as well associated with Tolkien's writings as Allen Lee then you might well be singing a different tune!

Before these artists the Hildebrandt Brothers were the standard. They had a habbit of portraying Hobbits as looking like 6 year old kids, much like Bakshi's film seemed to do, and if you scratch the surface and examine the design of the rest of the characters you will see definate parallels between them and Greg and Tim Hildebrandt's renditions of the characters, so in a way you could make the argument that the character design of the Bakshi thing was closest to what the Tolkien Community viewed to be the definative look and essence of Middle-earth at that time in much the same way that Allen Lee and John Howe have in recent history.

Bakshi was not well known for his artistic originality, most of his work is derivative if not out and out rip offs of the work of real artists. The movie "Wizards" used character design that ripped off Bode's "Cheech Wizard" with near felonious abandon! And throughout his "Movie" career he continued to display his laziness by insisting on filming live actors playing roles and drawing over them (Rotoscoping), sometimes only painting over them with a wash of water color. When he finally made "Cool World", in which he had actors interacting with "Animated" characters, it was as if he had finally found justification for this "technique" and hoped to prove that it really was a valid way to make "Animation", until "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" came along and showed that live humans could be shown interacting with truely animated characters and stole any thunder that Bakshi might have generated. That was when he left Motion Picture for the truely stellar and much lauded and appreciated realm of Saturday Morning Cartoons to do the updated "Mighty Mouse" series...

[Grond]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Lets be objective here, how much of this lauded "essence of Middle-earth" was due to his wisely hiring two of the best known and most loved illustrators of Tolkien's works to do the Art Direction? Had they hired someone with original ideas who created an equally stunning world that was not as FAMILLIAR to people and not as well associated with Tolkien's writings as Allen Lee then you might well be singing a different tune!

Before these artists the Hildebrandt Brothers were the standard. They had a habbit of portraying Hobbits as looking like 6 year old kids, much like Bakshi's film seemed to do, and if you scratch the surface and examine the design of the rest of the characters you will see definate parallels between them and Greg and Tim Hildebrandt's renditions of the characters, so in a way you could make the argument that the character design of the Bakshi thing was closest to what the Tolkien Community viewed to be the definative look and essence of Middle-earth at that time in much the same way that Allen Lee and John Howe have in recent history...RW, I quite agree... but the visualizations of Middle-earth that I speak of are composed of both the set design and the unique landscape of New Zealand. I applaud PJ's intelligence in hiring Lee and Howe to give the movie it's "feel" of Middle-earth. For me, he was very successful in that mode whereas Bakshi failed miserably. Bakshi's landscape of Middle-earth was one of darkness... and not darkness coming but as in darkness has already arrived. In the Bakshi film it was like Middle-earth's landscapes were already under Sauron's dominion. And I, for one, never approved nor appreciated the Hildebrandt representations of the characters of Middle-earth. I thought that they derived entirely too much from the time of chivalry, which was a parallel that Tolkien himself hated. He never meant for any of his characters to appear Arthurian or medieval. Hey... but that's just my opinion. :)

[PRH]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
When he finally made "Cool World", in which he had actors interacting with "Animated" characters, it was as if he had finally found justification for this "technique" and hoped to prove that it really was a valid way to make "Animation", until "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" came along and showed that live humans could be shown interacting with truely animated characters and stole any thunder that Bakshi might have generated.
You make a lot of good points RW. However, just let me point out that Roger Rabbit came out 4 years earlier than Cool World.

[son of bilbo]

I was wondering. becuase Canada is cool.

I hope that PJ stays as true to the book as possible, and I hope he doesn't make up some stupid scene and wreck the whole thing. I don't think he will, but. anyhoo

[ReadWryt]

This movie doesn't HAVE the "feel of Middle-earth", it has the look of the most recently popular artist's renderings of what Middle-earth would look like if Tolkien had set it in Medieval Europe!! Anybody who is really interested in the differences between Medieval Europe (Peter Jackson's Interpretation) and what Tolkien actually wrote should read the essay at this link by Michael Martinez, the author of "Visualizing Middle-earth"...


http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/26924

PRH:
"just let me point out that Roger Rabbit came out 4 years earlier than Cool World."

It DID?? Sheesh, my mental timeline is getting off. I think my Biological Clock needs a new battery!!

[lilhobo]

for those that complain about Bakshi's version, i say wait till you see PJ's TTT without guidance from Bakshi and you will see how closely PJ ripped Bakshi's version in the FOTR for the better !!!

every time Pj diverged from the Bakshi's version he flopped!!! eg. developing Aragon as late as Amon hen was totaly useless (why 3 hobbits would follow a molestor into wild is beyond me)

did the "luncheons, and elvenses" speech seem funny to anyone??? "noone throws a dwarf" was an australian colloquialism that we understood, but did anyone else find it funny??

Just to make everyone aware of the fact but Bakshi was hamstrung by money and time constraints.....you can really tell by the time in Moria! they didnt even have enough ink to give poor Pippin his hair color!

Is rotoscopy an indication for laziness??? i doubt it in Bakshi's LOTR, the attention to detail and the articulate body language and hand movements is extraordinary eg. note what hand movement Gandlaf makes when he tells Gimli of balin's death!

Yes, Baskshi cut corners latter with so much rotoscopy to save money but it would have worked if he animated the "good" guys and rotoscoped the "bad" guys

Also regarding the appearance of ME??? by the time of Saruman, his wizardry would have made the appearance and atmosphere darker! Pj just made a mistake of making Rivendell wooden!!! LothLorien was wooden, the other elven stronghold would have been better off made of marble to make it grander.

in reality it was just a rushed adventure movie without any atmosphere!!! Rivendell looked ****, lothlorien looked ****, Moria looked ****, only Minas Tirith looked promising and we had so little!!

Orthanc just passed the test and the Dark Tower looked like the telephone pole out the front door!

All in all, i never felt i was transported into a fantasy world but rather just giving a glimpse of a foreign country that could have been NZ, Canada, Scandinavia as in a tourism video!!!

the more time i see the film the more disappointed i get, to see such a wasted opportunity!!! $US300 = $NZ 600 and we got that???

without bakshi to guide the rest of the books, i have little hope fpr the last to movies

[PRH]

Here's (http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1016550646) another story where PJ talks about Gollum, Shelob, and Helm's Deep:


...While Jackson and Co. are mum on specifics, here are some details EW gleaned about Towers--which will boast about 600 F/X shots (about 80 more than Fellowship). Warning: This may get kinda geeky.

BURDENED BEASTIE

One fave Towers creation is Gollum, former owner and current coveter of the One Ring, who is forced to march Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) to Mount Doom. But Gollum's anti-Hobbit plotting makes him a menace a trois. "It's an unholy trinity,"

Jackson says. "We play psychological games more intensely than the book does." In addition to providing the sticky rasp of the computer-animated Gollum, actor Andy Serkis played his scenes with Wood and Astin while wearing a black Lycra jumpsuit covered with hundreds of pinhead sensors. Serkis' movements were then replicated to become the CGI Gollum. "Andy's physicality is a big part of what Gollum will look like on screen," says exec producer Mark Ordesky.

CREATURE COMFORTS

Quel scandale! Shelob, the she-spider that battles Sam at the end of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Two Towers, has been booted to the third movie. "If we started Return of the King after Shelob--the way the books do--there'd be very little for Frodo and Sam to do," says Jackson. Right now, good guy Treebeard, the oldest being in Middle-earth, is getting the final CGI touches on his bark and leaves, with a voice by John Rhys-Davies (who also plays dwarf Gimli). And look for Brad Dourif as creepy Grima Wormtongue, double agent of Saruman (Christopher Lee). "[Brad] doesn't play him as a groveling creature," Lee says. "He kind of slithers along beside me with a soft, husky voice, whispering."

FIGHTING SPIRITS

Jackson has between 15 and 20 hours of footage of the key battle of Helm's Deep, in which an army of elves and humans spar with 10,000 Uruk-hai (those uber-Orcs Saruman created). "Helm's Deep is one of Tolkien's most vivid pieces of prose," Jackson says. "You really feel his blood boiling." What does an army of crazed Uruk-hai sound like? A stadium of Kiwi cricket fans, turns out. In February, Jackson made a half-time appearance at a New Zealand-England match and asked the crowd to beat their chests, march in place, and even perform a tricky bit of dialect work. "There's this Black Speech battle cry the Uruk do," Ordesky says. "We wrote it out phonetically on the Diamond Vision screen and Peter directed 25,000 people going 'Rrwaaa harra farr rrara!"' Which just might translate to "Oscar, please."

[Snaga]

ReadWryt

The article you posted was an excellent exposition of why Middle Earth should not be thought of as a mediaeval or feudal society. I am inclined to agree, although I would need to give it some thought.

However his only complaint about the film, based on previewed material (since the article predates the release of the film) is that Bree doesn't have stone-built houses. I think he has picked a valid nit, but I don't view this as interpretative crime of the century. Since in all the 100s of posts noone has yet moaned about the architectural falsity of Bree, I conclude its not on anyone else's mind either.

His fears may be proved right when the next two films emerge, and we get a good view of Rohan and Gondor. There appear to be two ways to err: architecturally, and sociologically. It seems more likely that for example the Golden Hall at Edoras doesn't look especially like a nordic long-hall, than PJ will create lots of feudal vassal-lord relationships.

But surely this is an open question still?

[Shadowfax]

maybe, this is a very big maybe, to get a cliff hanger PJ will show a sillouhette of Shelob pouncing on Frodo as Sam starts to run towards him, the screen goes dark. Then they wouldn't be "showing" Shelob, but still having a cliffhanger. (my opinion is that it would be a better cliffhanger if it ended with Sam pounding on the doors of Cirith Ungol, but that's just me)

[son of bilbo]

that would be cool. I think pj is nuts cuz there has to be plenty of material in both books to make fully beautiful films.

[Grond]

Shadowfax, your scenario has merit but don't forget that Frodo confronts Shelob twice, once in her lair (where he defeats her using the Phial of Galadriel) and once outside her lair after Gollum ambushes Sam and when Frodo runs out of the lair Shelob ambushes him.

I'm convinced the Two Towers will end with the Hobbits lost in the maze of Shelob's Lair and Frodo will use the Phial of Galadriel to give light and they will be confronted with Shelob right in front of them and then... fade to black. But, of course, I'm just guessing.

[fantasydude]

in retrospect ,PJ followed TFOTR pretty strictly, with few changes, save the arwen travesty, so before you get your panties in a bunch, lets see what happen, and not enough material? puhleaaze!

[Thorin]

Originally posted by fantasydude
in retrospect ,PJ followed TFOTR pretty strictly, with few changes, save the arwen travesty, so before you get your panties in a bunch, lets see what happen

:confused:

The Arwen travesty (though by far the worst) was the least of the botching that Jackson did....The trip from the Shire to Bree alone was almost unrecognizable from Tolkien and horribly compressed....Bree to Rivendell was badly done (though with the exception of that amazing hobbit line "Back you devils!", :rolleyes: Weathertop was done alright.

Boromir fingering the ring on Caradhras, Lurtz, the hobbit shenanigans and Aragorn and Frodo on Amon Hen were all foreign to LoTR. And the list goes on and on and on....

[fantasydude]

yeah i guess your right but it was a darn good movie anyhow. well lets see what he screws up in the next one, i wonder...

[son of bilbo]

What I'm scared of is that PJ will make up a bunch of dumb scenes that will mess everything up.

I read somewhere that he "Had to write some scenes" because there was simply not enough stuff in the TT. (Which I think is balderdash)

[Glaurung]

Originally posted by ReadWryt
Once again I will say it, the penultimate truth about this matter...it's not so much what is being cut as it is what is being INVENTED. On the one hand we keep hearing statements about what has been left out being supported by the Cinematic Time Constraint defence, yet we keep hearing the same sources stating that there are new scenes created for the movies that never existed in the story. Lets face it, this should be refered to as "A film by Peter Jackson, loosely based on a book by J.R.R. Tolkien". It's the hubris of a man who has repeatedly claimed that he was going to be true to the "spirit of Tolkien", yet when it comes down to it the cutting of the scouring is actually self admitted ignorance of Tolkien's spirit, a man who repeatedly claimed he was making no "Major Changes" to the characters yet he displays his liberties with the characters at every turn, and who stated on several occasions that he was shooting all three movies at once, and act which he loved to point out "nobody" had ever performed in the past and yet now he informs us that "which will require "pick up" filming both this year and next, to complete scenes as yet unwritten, to flesh out both TTT and ROTK.". I don't see where he is doing anything but leading people to believe that he is more then he really is, a second rate Horror Movie director trying to do more then he is capable of... Geez you are so damn critical. I'd really like to hear how you would have brought LOTR to the screen had it been your responsibility. I'm sure that your film would have been absolutely perfect. No, really. Tell me how you would have done it.

[ReadWryt]

I'd really like to hear how you would have brought LOTR to the screen had it been your responsibility. I'm sure that your film would have been absolutely perfect. No, really. Tell me how you would have done it.

This is moot. I could, like other directors have done, say ANYTHING that I thought might please you and in the end do as I pleased with the story and characters. My point is that talk is cheap, and Jackson's talk is cheaper still as there is physical evidence in the form of a major released motion picture that continually flies in the face of the things he says. I'm not a movie director, but were I one making this movie I would have been up front from the start and said that changes were being made in characters, that I was inventing whole cloth things that were not in the books and that this was going to be a long project that would require lots of shooting over the course of 3 years, instead of making promotional hay out of claiming that all three were shot at once and that *I* was the first and only person to have done this...

[Taran]

Bravo, ReaWryt! Wonderfully said! But I think we should stop bashing PJ. I know the thing he said about not having enough material for TTT was a bunch of (balony). But this is a movie. We still have the true books! The movie is PJ's own cration. It could just as easily be called 'The Lord of the Rings by Peter Jackson.'

[son of bilbo]

well said indeed, Taran!


Bravo!!!

[fantasydude]

well i saw the trailer which looked really good, but lo and behold who did i see? Arwen of course, i guess pj thinks shes so hot and all that he has to spend precious movie time on a character that didnt even appear once in TTT. im wondering who she slept with to get such a major role that never existed. I hope eowyn gets more of the spotlight though, cause shes the bomb!

[Taran]

I (personally) think that they just wanted more female roles. Otherwise, the feminists (fanatics) would jump all over them (I wouldn't be surprised if they havent already, seeing as there was only one major female role in FOTR) And i really hate that. But, what can you do this day in age without being hammered by feminists? And also, people would wonder what happened to her (Arwen) those uneducated non-Tolkienists :o who don't know anything.

[Grond]

Originally posted by Taran
I (personally) think that they just wanted more female roles. Otherwise, the feminists (fanatics) would jump all over them (I wouldn't be surprised if they havent already, seeing as there was only one major female role in FOTR) And i really hate that. But, what can you do this day in age without being hammered by feminists? And also, people would wonder what happened to her (Arwen) those uneducated non-Tolkienists :o who don't know anything. Let's look at some recent mega-hits. 1)Saving Private Ryan - no female characters of note 2) Black Hawk Down - no female characters of note 3) Gladiator - no female characters of note (maybe Caesar's sister counts but only minor) 4) We Were Soldiers - no female characters of note 5) Castaway - no major female role (minor role for Helen Hunt)

Now, I'll give you that there have been many, many movies with female leads but just those above prove that one needn't worry because a movie lacks a strong female lead.

Of course, that's just my opinion... and I could be wrong... but I don't think any major female needed to appear until RotK and Eowyn.

[Úlairi]

Well if the scourging's out I'm not going to like it as much as I'd hoped!

[Shadowfax]

Yeah, I think that having Arwen rescue Frodo was a clever way to introduce her, but nobody is going to miss her if she doesn't show up until the RotK. Enough already. And I am not being misogynistic(I happen to be a girl) On the SotS~ I am majorly bummed that they will not have it, but I can see why. Everyone would be saying "When is this !@#$% movie going to end?" But maybe they will have it in the sp.ed. DVD? Everyone pray to Elbereth for that! Anyway my major fear (after seeing the trailer) is that they are going to have Aragorn actually tempted to take up Eowyn's offer! They had them sword fighting, for crying out loud! Anyway, that's the last thing we need is a vicious love triangle, you know , Arwen walking in an Eowyn and Aragorn, and having a catfight!:rolleyes:

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
Yeah, I think that having Arwen rescue Frodo was a clever way to introduce her...

I agree completely, however, I would have love to seen Glorfindel, I have always admired him.

[fantasydude]

oh yeah, arwen and eowyn in a catfight! right on, itll be like an episode of jerry springer, "speak to the hand, cuz aragorn is MY man!" oh definitely. pj seems to feel the need for more soap opera romance than tolkien gave us originally. Yeah when in heck did aragorn and eowyn have a swordfight? jeese.

[Shadowfax]

Hey, I'm going to try and convince one of my friends to help me make a completely accurate LotR movie! If anyone would like to help fund this noble enterprise, contact me!:D

[Taran]

Grond, sorry you misinterpreted my post...those movies you mentioned were good examples, but they were just being realistic, as they were historical fiction (or fact!) Since fantasy is made-up, the femenists would say it is not PC not to put women in there. I know about Eowyn and all, but for femeniists, one just isn't enough.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
Hey, I'm going to try and convince one of my friends to help me make a completely accurate LotR movie! If anyone would like to help fund this noble enterprise, contact me!:D

What's your budget? 400 million?

[Shadowfax]

Nah, I'm talking about a stop motion animation sorta thing. I already have some dolls for hobbits, maybe a barbie for Galadriel, hmmmmm... GI joes for orcs, you know, that sort of thing (really cheesy and horrible, but accurate;) )

[Úlairi]

And your spider-man doll is gonna be Sauron?

[Shadowfax]

Good idea. and you know, make paper mache sets, have my friends do the voices. I'll propbably doit one book at a time. (5- hours long each, propbably;) )The sad part is, is that I met some other Tolkienites, and they are probably going to be more enthusiastic about it than me! Oh, well, at least my mom will get off my back about being with people my own age!

[Úlairi]

Well, I look out for it in the cinemas, it'll probably be #1 Box Office!

[Shadowfax]

I'll try to post it on the internet. Hey, I just remembered, one of my friends little bro's has a pet tarantula! Shelob?

[Úlairi]

Brilliant! Am looking forward to it even more now! Gandalf, ummmm?

[Shadowfax]

I'll glue a beard on a troll doll.

[Úlairi]

LOL! How about the Balrog?

[Shadowfax]

Hmmm... find some sort of Super villan, glue wings on it, and douse it in lighter fluid. (BWAHAHAHAHA!)

[Úlairi]

PJ watch the hell out! Shadowfax is coming through!

[Shadowfax]

Yeeha! Tinsel town, here I come!:D

[Úlairi]

Perhaps I can be the producer? But you'll have to come over to Australia.

[Shadowfax]

If you really want to help you could send me money!:D

[Úlairi]

Ummmmmm... I've gotta go... shampoo my hair, yeah, that's it! Sorry Shadowfax I've gotta go shampoo my hair! LOL! No, sorry, can't help you with the money!

[Úlairi]

What's does that have to do with anything we have been saying here son of bilbo?

[PRH]

You needn't screw around like that.

[Úlairi]

Who? Me or son of bilbo PRH?

[PRH]

s.o.b.

[son of bilbo]

You guys are so rude. And you'll scratch this off too.

[Úlairi]

See ya sob!

[Grond]

I'm not really sure what has been said and deleted or what is going on here but please get back on post and let's keep things nice. :)

Son of Bilbo, you are welcome here. Please feel free to post on topic and we will try to make you feel welcome. :)

[Úlairi]

Grond, he's posting nonsense. He is posting things that are entirely irrelevant to the thread!

[Grond]

As I stated before, please get back on topic. Any post that is offensive or inappropriate should be reported. I am not pointing any fingers, just advising everyone to get back on subject. :)

[son of bilbo]

Sorry, sorry.............what was the subject?

[Shadowfax]

What the sequels are going to be like. I am sorry, I seem to have gotten sidetracked with Ulairi.

[son of bilbo]

The sequels will be fantastic. I have faith in PJ. (At least some) You should too.

:o :o :o

[Grond]

I agree that the sequel will be terrific. I just don't have any hopes that it will properly reflect tLotRs. :)

[Úlairi]

OK blame it on me Shadowfax!:p Yes Grond, I agree, IMO, it looks better than FotR, I hope it is.

[Isilme]

I think the squels are going to be great if they follow the book like FotR did.
I'm really interessted in what Arwen will be doing.
Is she going to fight?
When is she going to come into the movie?
Is she going to save somebody again?
Stuff like that.

I really want to see RotK, more than I want to see TTT.

[Úlairi]

The sequels will undoubtedly be brilliant, end of story.

[son of bilbo]

...................What are we gonna talk about now?

[Úlairi]

Good question.

[ReadWryt]

I'm having a logic implosion overload error from seeing "I think the squels are going to be great if they follow the book like FotR did." and "Is she going to save somebody again?" in the same post...

[Úlairi]

Agreed ReadWryt, the logic doesn't look to good, but I have a solution for you. Don't read anymore posts in here! That's perfectly logical, wouldn't you agree?

[ReadWryt]

Had I not volunteered to do so I would not, but since it's my "job" I must...

[Shadowfax]

Something I don't get, in TTT trailer, Galadriel says, "The quest will claim Frodo's life" or something like that. Wouldn't it then make sense to end it right after Shelob attacked, so that everyone would think that he's dead? *hope,hope,hope*
PS:It wasn't your foult, Ulairi, I was the one who mentioned my own movie!

[Úlairi]

I know Shadowfax, I was only having fun. I haven't seen TTT trailer so I cannot provide any wisdom nor shed any light on the subject Shadowfax, sorry.

[son of bilbo]

I think the trailer was wonderful. I bet the movie will be very exciting. I am excited.

[ReadWryt]

Yes, in the grand tradition of "Lawnmower Man" and "Starship Troopers" I'm certain that this will be an exciting movie...

[Úlairi]

After all these posts, there is one thing I really am dying to know. Is the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog actually shown in TTT?

[PRH]

from Ian McKellen's website:
Q: Will we see any scenes in the Trilogy from the original book when Gandalf battles the Balrog deep below the abyss of Moria Mines?

A: Yes: but in what detail we shall discover only when Peter Jackson has edited and completed The Two Towers.


It's an oddly phrased question to be sure, but there's the most complete answer I've heard.

I also read something somwhere about the effects work on TTT. One of the folks working on the effects said something to the effect of "There's a lot of new challenges...blah..blah...blah, but we've got the Balrog pretty well mastered, so that won't be so much of a challenge this time."

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by son of bilbo
Hmm.........................do you know what you're talking about? Do you? Gandalf does. Do you?

Trust me son of bilbo, PRH is one of the most up-to-date people here on the forum. His posts are usually telling us something that we have never heard before and IMHO, he should be a Moderator, I think that what we read from PRH's posts in completely and utterly reliable around 99.99% of the time.

[Grond]

Continued pointless posts by any poster will be deleted without warning.

[PRH]

Originally posted by Grond
Continued pointless posts by any poster will be deleted without warning. Like nominating me for moderator?

Just kidding Ulairi - thanks for the compliment.

[son of bilbo]

Didn't you already say that.........Grond? I'm sick of you guys saying the same things all the time. I also apologize for attacking Mr. PRH's accuracy.

Good day to you all.

[Úlairi]

Originally posted by PRH
Like nominating me for moderator?

Just kidding Ulairi - thanks for the compliment.

Hey no problem PRH, I was serious when I said that and in no way did I think what I posted was pointless, like son of bilbo's posts.