John Boorman's Lord of the Rings

[doug*platypus]

Though it seems folly to wade into this discussion without a bulletproof vest or something, nevertheless here I go!

Excalibur is one of my favourite movies of all time. I like it more than any of the LOTR movies I have seen; it is gritty, ranges from grandeur to bloody horror, and has a great mood created throughout. That said, I am not too familiar with the source material, and so I'm not aware of how badly the movie may have butchered the original story.

I won't say what my favourite movies are, because they have tended to rub people on this forum up the wrong way "from time to time". Suffice to say there's six of them, and they have lightsabers.

I would have been happy for Boorman to have made a Lord of the Rings movie, as long as I had not seen it before reading the books. I am glad that I had already read the books several times before even seeing the Bakshi cartoon, so my perceptions have not been coloured by film versions, and I have been able to enjoy the text.

Although it would be a vast shame for the movie to be condensed into one film, if the main stories were handled sufficiently well, I think I would even prefer that to three PJ films. Having 3 hours per book, PJ, Fran and Phillippa felt comfortable enough to add material which I didn't particularly enjoy, making the films drag somewhat (ducks). One film may have been a tidier package and riveting throughout.

I like some of Boorman's seemingly kooky ideas, such as the telling of the story of the Ring at the Council of Elrond, one of the two most natural places for it to occur in the story (the other being Gandalf's chat to Frodo in The Shadow of the Past... prologue schmologue IMHO). As for Galadriel's temptation of Frodo, that's a pretty fresh angle to take! And I personally wouldn't condemn it before seeing it, although in general I'm loath to endorse any departure from canon. Aragorn's ending up with Éowyn is a regrettable departure, as is Arwen's being a young teenager.

But what I mostly like about the Boorman idea, is that it would be widely known that as a single film with much material cut, it did not accurately represent the book. My great fear is that the PJ movies will be seen as the definitive and authoritative versions, and that future filmmakers will be discouraged from telling the real story.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Excalibur is one of my favourite movies of all time.

Mine too.

so I'm not aware of how badly the movie may have butchered the original story.

What PJ et al did to LotR is nothing compared to what happened with Arthur and friends -- the only way Boorman gets away with it is there's a looooong tradition going back hundreds of years of such butchery.

I like some of Boorman's seemingly kooky ideas

"Seemingly"?? Well, OK. But do you think he would have made sure that people got disrobed before becoming intimate in the LotR movie? Because as I'm sure you will remember from Excalibur, there is this hilarious love scene:

Scene: INT NIGHT

A FULLY ARMOURED KNIGHT takes a scantily clad WOMAN in his arms and they head toward a BED.

FADE

Scene: INT MORNING

A FULLY ARMOURED KNIGHT kisses a scantily clad WOMAN good bye and walks away from the BED.

Hmmmmm...

[iamtheapeohyes]

The Boorman film sounds great. Although Jackson's FotR was wonderful, the next two films felt rushed- he changed the wrong things, the emphasis was all wrong (Helm's Deep as an overlong fight, not an impossible situation faced with heroism and saved by the vengeful force of Nature with the Huorns). Something like LOTR is very difficult to film unless you stick religiously to the books- that's why FOTR works. Boorman's idea- to make a film look and feel like a film, with an adult feel- sounds more in keeping with the spirit of the trilogy. Maybe he'll get a call to do the downfall of Numenor as a film. Maybe he'll put in a scene where Queen berethiel seduces an Ent.

[Mithalwen]

Sadly John Boorman has passed beyond the sundering sea...

[TheLostPilgrim]

Thought I'd bring this thread up, given the Gandalf/Galadriel scene in The Hobbit trailer....

[TheLostPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Sadly John Boorman has passed beyond the sundering sea...

He's still alive.

[Elmo]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

He's still alive.

He moved to Ireland though.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Elmo

He moved to Ireland though.

Which from my point of view counts as "beyond the sundering sea".

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

He's still alive.

Ooops sorry I had read an interview with his son Charley and thought he had said something about his father's death..... fail..

[FailBeast]

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

"He mentioned another change. "There's a duel between the magicians, Gandalf and Saruman. I was inspired by an African idea of how magicians duel with words, which I had read about. It was a way of one entrapping the other as a duel of words rather than special effects flashes, shaking staffs, and all that. I tried to keep away from that a lot, and Boorman did too. [Reads from script]:
GANDALF: Saruman, I am the snake about to strike!
SARUMAN: I am the staff that crushes the snake!
GANDALF: I am the fire that burns the staff to ashes!
SARUMAN: I am the cloudburst that quenches the fire!
GANDALF: I am the well that traps the waters!"

"

...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...

[Nerwen]

This thread rather perplexes me, I must say. I don't want to pick fights with anyone who has posted here– many of them are people whose opinion I value, in fact– but I can't feeling there is quite a double standard at work, in some cases. I mean, some of the same people who are furious at PJ's cavalier attitude to the source material are here praising John Boorman precisely for having *no* respect for it whatever. Just a bit of a contradiction there, surely?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This thread rather perplexes me, I must say. I don't want to pick fights with anyone who has posted here– many of them are people whose opinion I value, in fact– but I can't feeling there is quite a double standard at work, in some cases. I mean, some of the same people who are furious at PJ's cavalier attitude to the source material are here praising John Boorman precisely for having *no* respect for it whatever. Just a bit of a contradiction there, surely?

Unless the feeling is that the tragic thing about PJ is that he could have gotten it right, maybe? That he did enough to lead one to believe he could have scored a touchdown in staying true to the books, instead of settling for a field goal?

I wouldn't have been keen on the Boorman version myself, but it looks like people are saying such a farce as the Boorman project would have been more palatable because it could have been treated as a lark, and not taken seriously.

Maybe it's time for Not Another Ring Movie. I nominate Judd Apatow to direct.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Unless the feeling is that the tragic thing about PJ is that he could have gotten it right, maybe? That he did enough to lead one to believe he could have scored a touchdown in staying true to the books, instead of settling for a field goal?

I wouldn't have been keen on the Boorman version myself, but it looks like people are saying such a farce as the Boorman project would have been more palatable because it could have been treated as a lark, and not taken seriously.

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

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

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....

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

This thread rather perplexes me, I must say. I don't want to pick fights with anyone who has posted here– many of them are people whose opinion I value, in fact– but I can't feeling there is quite a double standard at work, in some cases. I mean, some of the same people who are furious at PJ's cavalier attitude to the source material are here praising John Boorman precisely for having *no* respect for it whatever. Just a bit of a contradiction there, surely?

Maybe imagined dwarf smacking is more amusing than actual horse snogging? Or that if you are going ot change stuff you may as well go at it with some elan rather than tinkering that makes no sense and has no style.... Might have beens get bathed in a rosy light while realities get the cold light of day....