John Boorman's Lord of the Rings - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

davem · 04-25-2006, 01:20 PM

What came across to me was the emphasis on the 'otherness' on the Elves in the adaptation, which didn't come across in the movies, where they were reduced to mere 'superhumans'. Maybe you'd need an adaptor who felt free to go off at tangents & try new things in order to bring out things that a too-loyal adaptor would or could not.

The Rivendell scenes in the B/P version could possibly be very powerful if done right. There's a part of me that wants Boorman to do it - yes - even the Galadriel/Frodo thing if he wanted. The more I think about it the more intrigued I am. Apparently there's a copy of the script at Marquette.

Diamond18 · 04-25-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

Apparently there's a copy of the script at Marquette.

Well I'll try and go steal it for you but I can't make any promises.

Morsul the Dark · 04-25-2006, 04:19 PM

well let me say what I like about these idea

Quote:

The sober exposition of the Council of Elrond is recast as a fantastic medieval masque representing the history of the Rings. This highly stylized sequence combines elements of Kabuki theater, rock opera, and circus performance, and could almost be imagined as a later retelling of the legend by a tribe of decadent Dark Elves. It is strangely effective, and gets the necessary back-story across, but it is definitely not a straightforward adaptation of Tolkien’s work.

Also that skinless horse sounds awesome however it shouldnt replace the flying steed it should be the nazgul's horse in the first place

that seems like a not so bad idea if you ask me

Oh and sometimes in PJ's version you want to bury captain obvious and beat sense into him

Oh (and this is from a 18 year old guy's point of view) they could have made the ladies a bit sexier(but not to the point of absurdity that this script mentions)

Hilde Bracegirdle · 04-25-2006, 05:19 PM

Ergh! I'd have some serious problems with folks thinking that Pallenberg & Boorman's version of LotR was the real deal. Like some ghastly parallel universe!

Quote:

Oh (and this is from a 18 year old guy's point of view) they could have made the ladies a bit sexier(but not to the point of absurdity that this script mentions)

No comment on that one, though I have plenty of strong opinions on it!

Lathriel · 04-25-2006, 08:46 PM

I am very glad that this version never came to be. As well I don't like Excalibur so...Anyway, it would have ruined part of Tolkien for me.

Indeed what were they on while coming up with this.

davem · 04-26-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathriel

I am very glad that this version never came to be. As well I don't like Excalibur so...Anyway, it would have ruined part of Tolkien for me.

Indeed what were they on while coming up with this.

You see, it wouldn't have ruined part of Tolkien for me because its so diferent from the books. I have much more of a problem with the PJ movies because they're so close to the books generally that the changes grate much more.

Lalwendë · 04-26-2006, 09:08 AM

To be honest, if a film like that had been made before Jackson's adaptations then I'd have gone up the wall, no matter who made it! Whatever we think about Jackson's version, I think he did at least make an effort to stay as true to the books as he could - putting aside TT of course, which really went off on one as t'were. I think Jackson had to do this in order to win the support of the Tolkien fans like us, as it was our dislike that would make or break the initial reception of these films anwyay.

But, if Boorman made that film now, I'd probably think it was excellent viewing, seeing as I thought Excalibur was brilliant - mad, funny and scary all at once. After all, the stories these films are based on are mad enough, so why shouldn't the film makers be allowed a little fun when making them? Once the 'serious' version is out of the way, of course.

One thing bothered me though. Rock opera? Ugh!

Essex · 05-02-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davem

You see, it wouldn't have ruined part of Tolkien for me because its so diferent from the books. I have much more of a problem with the PJ movies because they're so close to the books generally that the changes grate much more.

If you take this premise that you would rather the movie to be miles away rather than close but with changes that 'grate', then what you are saying (and mister underhill is too) is that the Cartoon version Return of the King is a better version of ROTK than PJ's?

Can I have some of what you're on?

04-25-2006, 01:20 PM	#1
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	What came across to me was the emphasis on the 'otherness' on the Elves in the adaptation, which didn't come across in the movies, where they were reduced to mere 'superhumans'. Maybe you'd need an adaptor who felt free to go off at tangents & try new things in order to bring out things that a too-loyal adaptor would or could not. The Rivendell scenes in the B/P version could possibly be very powerful if done right. There's a part of me that wants Boorman to do it - yes - even the Galadriel/Frodo thing if he wanted. The more I think about it the more intrigued I am. Apparently there's a copy of the script at Marquette. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

04-25-2006, 08:46 PM	#5
Lathriel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Wandering through Middle-Earth (Sadly in Alberta and not ME) Posts: 612	I am very glad that this version never came to be. As well I don't like Excalibur so...Anyway, it would have ruined part of Tolkien for me. Indeed what were they on while coming up with this. __________________ Back again

04-26-2006, 09:08 AM	#7
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	To be honest, if a film like that had been made before Jackson's adaptations then I'd have gone up the wall, no matter who made it! Whatever we think about Jackson's version, I think he did at least make an effort to stay as true to the books as he could - putting aside TT of course, which really went off on one as t'were. I think Jackson had to do this in order to win the support of the Tolkien fans like us, as it was our dislike that would make or break the initial reception of these films anwyay. But, if Boorman made that film now, I'd probably think it was excellent viewing, seeing as I thought Excalibur was brilliant - mad, funny and scary all at once. After all, the stories these films are based on are mad enough, so why shouldn't the film makers be allowed a little fun when making them? Once the 'serious' version is out of the way, of course. One thing bothered me though. Rock opera? Ugh! __________________ Gordon's alive!