COMPASS & LOTR comparison

[Aiwendil]

Say what you will about Peter Jackson's occasional lapses into self-indulgence, he's a filmmaker who completely immerses himself in the worlds he's creating and his passion comes through onscreen.

I doubt that many of Jackson's detractors would disagree with this. I don't think I've ever heard anyone criticize him for a lack of visual imagination.

[davem]

Should a director attempt to stamp his own vision on an adaptation, or submit to the author's?

Difficult. the main problem with Jackson as far as LotR goes was that he lost it too many times & just went too far. The Aragorn/Eowyn/Gimli episode in TT springs to mind - a perfect scene - till Gimli falls off the horse: one step too far. Same with the flaming Denethor 3 mile run. The main problem was that no-one seemed to be present to tell Jackson when enough was enough.

As to the Golden Compass - I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know how bad/good or average it is. It doesn't seem to be doing too well - though that could simply be down to the attempted boycott by various religious groups.

I know Jackson has earned a lot of praise for LotR, but looking at his other movies I suspect that's down to the material rather than his skill. His King Kong was as mind numbing as it was bum numbing....

[Nerwen]

Davem, while I agree that Jackson's version tends to lack subtlety, I don't think you're being fair to him– he brought off some incredibly difficult things in the Lord of the Rings movies. I don't see a lack of skill there. You're talking about a lack of taste. (Well, I mean, he made a film called "Bad Taste"– what did you expect?)

I think this may be the reason some Tolkien fans can't reconcile themselves to the films, rather than because said films fail to adhere blindly to the text.

Myself, I just think it's a regrettable failing in an otherwise good movie trilogy.

[Sauron the White]

from davem

Should a director attempt to stamp his own vision on an adaptation, or submit to the author's?

If you could make a list of the first few major responsibilities a filmmaker has, would a question such as this make that short list? As such, I think it is one of those esoteric exercises which has very little to do with the real task before a filmmaker.

Difficult. the main problem with Jackson as far as LotR goes was that he lost it too many times & just went too far. The Aragorn/Eowyn/Gimli episode in TT springs to mind - a perfect scene - till Gimli falls off the horse: one step too far. Same with the flaming Denethor 3 mile run. The main problem was that no-one seemed to be present to tell Jackson when enough was enough.

Dwarves were suppose to be rather poor equestrians were they not? How is having one fall off a horse evidence of going too far when an event such as that was probably likely to happen if attempted? Later, the director does have a bit of redemption for Gimil's horseman skills when he mounts a steed and bravely attacks the warg riders on the way to Helms Deep.

The Denethor "3 mile run" lasted exactly ten seconds from start to finish. Time it. I have. The worlds fastest runner could do three miles in 12 minutes plus. I hardly think anyone was sitting there plugging all the distance together and coming up with three miles. ANd if they were Jackson had lost them a long way before that. How many times have audience members sees a flaming person in a previous movie and that lasted a similar time? Numerous I would think. So much so that some stuntmen now consider it a normal part of the job and there are industry standards for such a thing. I hardly think that particular scene tipped the balance.

There may have been people there to say when enough was enough. One of whom was Jackson himself. When he saw the early footage of Arwen at Helms Deep, he canned it saying it just did not work. It could be that even Jackson felt he had gone too far and could recognize it.

I know Jackson has earned a lot of praise for LotR, but looking at his other movies I suspect that's down to the material rather than his skill.

Ah yes - the old claim raises its head once again. The Directors Guild - people who know a little bit more about film than most of us - obviously felt Jackson did a more than competent job when they gave him their top award. And its very difficult to compare two different films from the same man and judge one by the faults of the other. I probably share some objections about KONG with you, but as far as the quality of LOTR goes it is irrelevant.

Its interesting that anyone can claim the material was what made the films great when many of those same voices continuilly bemoan the near destruction of that same material. I have read where some purist critics claim its not JRR TOlkiens LOTR that is one the screen due to all the additions, subtractions and changes. They can hardly recognize the material. But now that same material came through enough to make the films successful and good? Its hard to have it both ways.

And the excellence of the source material (and I agree that it was excellent) did nothing to help poor Ralph Bakshi in his earlier effort at the first half of the book, nor the Rankin & Bass studio in filming the last part. Neither of those. based on the same excellent material, were hits with the audience or with critics. If LOTR is an excellent steak that anyone can cook, it ended up as a bad meal two out of three times when tackled by different chefs.

[Groin Redbeard]

Lord of the Rings is based on a christian perspective were good truimphs over evil.
The Golden Compass was written by an atheist, and, in the books, evil truimphs over good.

The two trilogies are completely opposite of each other!

[Thenamir]

Opening Weekends (USA):

Fellowship of the Ring: $47 million
Two Towers: $62 million
Return of the King: $72 million

Narnia: $65 million

Golden Compass: $26 million

I couldn't be happier...well, I might have been happier had GC's numbers been lower...

All figures taken from www.boxofficemojo.com

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Opening Weekends (USA):

Fellowship of the Ring: $47 million
Two Towers: $62 million
Return of the King: $72 million

Narnia: $65 million

Golden Compass: $26 million

I couldn't be happier...well, I might have been happier had GC's numbers been lower...

All figures taken from www.boxofficemojo.com

Does boxofficemojo say how many theatres the movies opened in? I don't know about this one, Compass or FotR et al, but I know that movie revenues can often depend on the number of cinemas showing the movie. For instance, I find it fascinating that apparently Beowulf took in more in the box office in Canada than in the US (if I read the stats right in a local newspaper) and I really wonder what's behind that and I know that some movies are specifically limited in the number of their opening appearances.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Lord of the Rings is based on a christian perspective were good truimphs over evil.
The Golden Compass was written by an atheist, and, in the books, evil truimphs over good.

The two trilogies are completely opposite of each other!

Wow...feightin' talk

I haven't seen the Golden Compass yet (and nor am likely to until it's out on DVD, sadly) but I have seen the first five minutes and as many snips as I can online and I was impressed by the look of the piece. However I have also heard that the narrative has been mucked about with a little too much.

How the film can be offensive to anyone I can't grasp as the Magisterium can at worst only be an allegory of organised religion in general (and isn't even based on Catholicism but on Calvinism) and I understand even this has been downplayed. And organised religions can indeed be bad news just as politics can be bad news - Pullman's allowed to say that if he likes. There's a very interesting interview on BBC Radio Oxford* with the guy doing the whole protest thing and he failed to answer the thorny question of why if TGC is 'offensive' to Christians because it's somehow underhandedly tempting them towards Atheism and therefore should be banned, is a film of Narnia OK?

Wonder what sort of a froth they're in on Lewis forums? Meh.

Originally Posted by StW

If you could make a list of the first few major responsibilities a filmmaker has, would a question such as this make that short list? As such, I think it is one of those esoteric exercises which has very little to do with the real task before a filmmaker.

You know, I'm inclined to think of late that there is some merit in film-makers being either 'economical with the truth' or taking liberties with precious literature. Why? In the first example the Tudors has just finished on the BBC and even though Henry VIII was rather too young and virile amongst other yawning historical inaccuracies it didn't matter because it was right rockin' viewing (very much not for kids, heh). In the second example Cranford is also drawing to an end - though this adaptation is about as close to the actual novel as chalk is to cheese - it's much better!

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/oxford/content/..._compass.shtml

On one of these links you'll also find a quite disrespectful anecdote about when Pullman had dinner with Tolkien. I found it funny anyway, you can't be preciousss all the time.

[Thenamir]

There's a very interesting interview on BBC Radio Oxford* with the guy doing the whole protest thing and he failed to answer the thorny question of why if TGC is 'offensive' to Christians because it's somehow underhandedly tempting them towards Atheism and therefore should be banned, is a film of Narnia OK?

Let there be no banning of movies on the basis of philosophical disagreement. By all means, make Pullman movies, Michael Moore movies, whatever floats the boat of the persons putting up the production dollars. Let them compete in the open marketplace. That was the point of my prior post with the box-office numbers. <cackles with barely-suppressed laughter and runs away...>