So that would make Liverpool the Grey Havens?

Which it kind of was for a time in the mid 1800s...

I still think what I used to think on this - it would have been fun, but only once an attempt at a serious adaptation was out of the way (because like it or not, that's what Jackson attempted). And I think it might have been fun because I really love Excalibur, despite that taking liberties left, right and centre and occasionally being extremely silly and pompous.

In a small voice and without use of a wooden spoon...can I say that Ken Russell might have made an amusing and silly version too? ;)

Well, it is the place from whence the Four Wizards came. ;)

And also, the Blue Wizards ;)

Perhaps one good chunk?
 

As very strange as about 90% of that sounds, what with knocking the knowledge into Gimli and all, this one part:

"

...sounds actually like it could be really awesome. It could also, of course, be poorly done, but it sounds both creative and laden with potential for a pretty epic wizard fight. I'm trying to imagine how you could show it though... Despite their distaste for special effects, I think if such a scene were to be done without any effects at all, it'd just look like two guys ranting at each other. But perhaps with subtle effects, like changes in the lighting or moving air, you could convey they idea that there was more to this exchange that just words... Well, I don't suppose it matters, since nobody'll be shooting the scene. But I think that bit could've been good.

Perhaps, as half-nuts as the rest of it seems, it may, too, come down to the handling. Although, it does seem like it'd be hard to pull off... It would be interesting to see a whole script.

Sorry to interrupt discussion of the Blue Wizards...

I see. Sounds like The Hobbit
could be a real treat for you, then, doesn't it?;)

Well, not necessarily for me, but I'm likely in the minority....

You know, you're not alone in the minority... I'm rather saving up to get me and my brother into an insanely expensive 3D cinema once the Hobbit arrives. And that would be my first 3D movie, ever. :eek:

I kind of wish this was made. The late '60s-early '70s had a very fantasy inspired--almost alien to me--feel about them in and of themselves; As if Middle Earth was closer than ever. This film would've deviated from the books heavily, yes, but any film version would be a mere adaptation, and this would've at least been original AND would not have pretended to be close to the source material. Boorman wove magic with Excalibur and created one of the best fantasy movies of all time--I have no doubt he could've done it with his version of the LOTR. I would've also loved to see the Wizard battle of words rather than the cheesy battle in PJ's film--The Battle of Words actually sounds rather intense. And perhaps the talents of Ray Harryhausen could've been brought in, to create some of the creatures in that wonderful stop motion style (I am a huge fan of it, personally) Why not?

It might have drifted far from the source material, but it could've been an amazing fantasy film in and of itself, and truly an awesome product of the freer 1970s. The era of D&D and the like. A time closer in spirit to the Lord of the Rings itself--when people wanted to go to "back to the land" and hated industrialization and longed for the forests, trees, and a more agrarian lifestyle--Much like Tolkien himself.

As it is, there is and will always be only one TRUE version of the Lord of the Rings and it is a book penned by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Therein lies the problem TLP, if you deviate too far from the original it becomes something else, for example Merlin the T.V series. They could quite easily have called that programme The Boy Magician, for it is so far removed from anything I have read on the subject. Boormans's EXCALIBUR plays heavily on Le Morte D'Arthur which in itself is almost complete fantasy and little to do with the mytho/historical Arthur. I find the latest (2004) Arthur film to be better, even though it misses out characters and diverts from legends. I have over 700 Tolkien books in my library and quite a few on Arthur..... but when it comes to films I'm not a purist, I'm a realist, it is almost impossible to expect a film to remain totally loyal to a book.... but please, let's not deviate TOO far.

But it still would've been released as 'The Lord of the Rings', which effectively IS claiming to be close to the source material.

With Gimli being beaten in a hole and Frodo engaging in sexual intercourse with Galadriel? Really?

I don't know about anyone else but I thought that movie was awful. It discards the fantasy of Arthur's story so it can claim to be realistic, yet is then riddled with so many historical inaccuracies and ridiculous sequences that it actually ends up being neither.

And let's not even discuss Keira Knightley's role.

I haven't seen this film, but I agree it seems a bit perverse to discard the fantasical elements in something that consists of little else. No offence, narfforc, but honestly, I think you could fit all known facts about the historical King Arthur on the back of a postage stamp.:D

What is known is that even less of the fantasy Arthur ever existed, but some actual leader of The Dark Ages did. He was not a knight in shining armour, nor did he live in a Disney Type Fairy castle. I for one enjoyed the 2004 film for one reason, it attempted to show some of the theories behind the historical Arthur and not the Hollywood History of England version nor the fantasy one. Anyone wishing read anything on the search for the real Arthur should read the following books:-

Pendragon:The Origins of Arthur by Steve Blake & Scott Lloyd
The Keys To Avalon by Steve Blake & Scott Lloyd
Arthur And The Lost Kingdoms by Alistair Moffat
The Reign Of Arthur by Christopher Gidlow
The Holy Kingdom by Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett
Arthur The Dragon King by Howard Reid
King Arthur's Place In History by W.A. Cummins
King Arthur A Military History by Michael Holmes
Arthur King Of The Britons by Daniel Mersey
Arthur's Britain by Leslie Alcock
A Quest For Arthur's Britain by Geoffrey Ashe
King Arthur by Norma Lorre Goodrich

There are of course many more, but these are the ones I enjoyed most. If of course you want the Fantasy version look no further than Le Morte D'Arthur and Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail.

God knows what Boorman would have done to the Lord of the Rings, probably the same as his treatment of Arthur, ignore anything to do with the real book.

To the best of my knowledge, narfforc, historians by no means all agree that Arthur was a real person– that in fact is why he's regarded as a legendary, rather than historical, figure. Everything you cite there would be dealing with conjecture, not fact, anyway. So I just don't think it's fair to attack Boorman for choosing to go with the fantastical approach in that case.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of his proposed travesty of "Lord of the Rings", you understand. The two cases are just not the same.

There is one similarity, both Le Morte and LofR's are works of fiction. I believe Boorman's treatment of the material at his disposal was bad, whether the fantasy Arthur or not, given that, I would fear his approach to any film concerning Hobbits.

A couple of years back, I scoured the internet for details on the Boorman script. I managed to piece together a long description from two people who claimed to have read it; they gave separate accounts which contained details to support each other, but naturally I can't vouch for their honesty! Still, it makes for... interesting reading:

The Boorman Script

Some of my 'favourite' parts:




It's also 'interesting' that the duel between Gandalf and Saruman takes place at the Black Gate... because Saruman is the Mouth of Sauron. :D Isengard doesn't even exist in this film.

If the version I've put together is accurate, the Boorman movie would have been a deeply weird film. There is no Bree, no Helm's Deep, no Cirith Ungol (Shelob lives in Barad-dur). Faramir is gone, Eomer and Eowyn are Theoden's children, and Aragorn marries Eowyn. Elves - or 'Elfs' - are deeply magical and otherworldly, and orcs are enchanted humans. Reading the description, especially in light of the mostly-faithful-to-the-broader-plot Jackson films (Osgiliation notwithstanding), is an extremely surreal experience.

hS

Weell, I don't think I buy this at face value. Still, I don't think such outrageous liberties with the characters and story are at all unimaginable from Hollywood, especially to make it more 'modern'.

I'm waiting for a film of this. If you're going to murder the source material, at least do it in the name of humor. ;)

Huey, all that fits pretty well with other accounts of the script. The thing about the battling bee-keepers is a new one on me, though- and an, ah, interesting take on the "common folk fighting with with improvised weapons" trope.

Perhaps Boorman was thinking of Bruegel (definitely a bizarre image)....

http://theartstack.com/artist/pieter...dnester-c-1568

Those are absolutely terrifying! I certainly wouldn't want to see them marching towards me.

What's interesting about the Boorman script (again assuming my reconstruction is accurate) is that it has very powerful visual imagery. I'm actually tempted to draw things like thirteen-year-old Arwen splitting Narsil between Aragorn and Boromir, or Gimli defacing the Black Gate, or the Kabuki Council, or Aragorn's 'disguise an army as a giant snake' trick.

But, er... probably not the Seduction of Galadriel, or the Nazgultron (yeah, the Nine combine into a single Nazgul, it's a thing). I'll skip those.

hS

Yes, I was thinking of some of the more grotesque images in Boorman's Excalibur, and thought Bruegel's Beekeepers would set the tone nicely for the scene. Plus, the beekeeper's apparel would be appropriate for a quasi-medieval setting that Boorman seems to prefer.

Thanks to Huinerson for that summary; it was fascinating. As noted, it is third-hand information, so it may not be completely accurate, but (and this is entirely subjective) judging by Boorman's other work it definitely feels like him.

The Tolkien purist in me obviously recoils at much of the script. And yet I'd still kind of love to see it. It almost feels different enough that I might be able to enjoy it in its own right - more "inspired by" than "adapted from" The Lord of the Rings.

Entirely by chance, I stumbled across a blog post this week which contains the holy grail of, um, this thread:

The Complete Boorman Script!

(Link to my immediately-made copy; there's another in the blog.)

It's all true. The Gimli-abuse. The Frodo/Galadriel scene, complete with "sensual cries". The Kabuki theatre. The bee-cultivators of Gondor. Not a single word of my summary was an exaggeration. :eek:

It also quotes from Tolkien a lot, but often in really weird places. It's like they found lines they liked, and just stuffed them in wherever they could.

Oh, and Gandalf saves the Fellowship from wargs on Caradhras by drugging them, poking them in the eyes, and freezing them into a giant block of ice. As you do!

hS

Holy psilocybin trip, Batman!

(Thanks for that, Hu)