McKellen To Follow Del Toro?

[LadyBrooke]

It's PJ. He probably wants Gandalf and Saruman to attack orcs like Saruman and Gandalf's fight while legions of elf warriors fight off orcs in the back ground.

Tolkien = more description, less battle

PJ = What do you mean the original Helm's Deep didn't have elves there and was a very small percent of the book?

Edit: Hope this isn't against any rules. Used the idea about senile actors on my livejournal, http://brookeoflorien.livejournal.com/

[deagol]

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by deagol

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Originally posted by Eonwe

I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

Yep. And probably buy the dvd, even though the only one I can
rewatch is FoTR. The other two, while cinematically well done...

[LadyBrooke]

I'll go see it when it comes out if for no other reason than the fact that it is one of the few movies that my step-dad and I can agree we both would like. However due to all the delays I don't think I'll be able to see it with him or my friends because I'll be leaving for college in a year.

My main problems with the movies is the casting, directing, and wardrobe decisions for the elves. When I think of elves I picture somebody young looking but in the case of the older elves wise and the younger ones lighthearted. However I felt that by making Elrond hate men and consider them weak, Legolas act like Captain Obvious, and whatever in the world they did to Celeborn's wig and speech habits, they managed to ruin what could have been some of the most interesting characters in the movie.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

Originally Posted by deagol

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

Well played sir! I award thee 10 internet points.

Peter Jackson's films are quite well made - especially compared to anything by Uwe Boll or even Michael Bay! To be sure, I don't agree with some of his decisions in terms of plot or characterisation or tone - but the films could have been much, much, much, much, much, worse. That being said, I do deplore some of his decisions - especially daffy Denethor, deus ex machina Army of the Dead and increasingly one dimensional and then suddenly dead Saruman.

[narfforc]

Originally Posted by deagol

Judging by the tone of most of these posts, this is rather interesting discussion about a movie that might not get made that most of you don't want to watch even if it does.

I think most will watch it, as with The Lord of the Rings. I have all the released DVD versions, and watch them from time to time. They are good for what they are, that is to say, a brief glimpse through the window into Middle-earth.These films are not really made for the likes of us. It is not the things that Jackson leaves out that bothers me, it is the things he puts in. He seems to think he can better the skill of a Master Story-teller, in some sense maybe he can, for his versions are for those unable to visualise the true beauty of these books or any book, and he knows their likes and dislikes better than us. Most cannot sit through a two hour film due to attention deficit, anything more than a simple plot destroys the limited brain cells of most of the film-going public, so Jackson has to keep it as simple as possible, yet The Lord of the Rings is anything but simple. Given his treatment of LotR's, I worry that his next excursion into Middle-earth may well be, The Hobbit, There or Thereabouts (The Quest of Errorbore), but I'll still watch it.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by narfforc

for his versions are for those unable to visualise the true beauty of these books or any book, and he knows their likes and dislikes better than us. Most cannot sit through a two hour film due to attention deficit, anything more than a simple plot destroys the limited brain cells of most of the film-going public, so Jackson has to keep it as simple as possible, yet The Lord of the Rings is anything but simple.

nafforc, I think you'll find most of the film-going public can indeed sit through a two-hour film quite easily– hence the popularity of two and even three-hour epics. Like the LotR movies, now that you mention it. They're not exactly shorts, you know. My main problem with Jackson et al is that they went and added extra story complications made up out of their own heads. These would have been better films if they had stuck to simplifying them.

Also, I think you should remember that rather a lot of people– not all of them drooling vegetables– do actually like these films. Rumour has it that some of them are even members of this forum.

And yeah, I'm picking on you a bit, nafforc, but it's like this: the exaggerated bitterness some hardcore Tolkien fans have towards the films can get a little tiresome, but I can accept that. The sneering at movie-fans themselves... not so much. And really, you need to get this into perspective. There are films out there that would entirely justify you assuming their fans had "limited brain cells" or "attention deficit". I really don't think these are among them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And really, you need to get this into perspective. There are films out there that would entirely justify you assuming their fans had "limited brain cells" or "attention deficit". I really don't think these are among them.

Everyone has his or her own tastes, which we should respect.

But for perspective, I would humbly suggest looking at the lists of best films of the "Noughties". Every one of them has its own axe to grind and own perspective to plug, but overall there's not many that put any of the Jackson films in the top ten. Even those that are heavily-weighted towards fantasy don't put LotR at the top, even when including some part of the trilogy in the top ten. And when the comparison extends to best films of all times, incorporating the legendary films of the twentieth century, Jackson's trilogy just fades.

They might be a top franchise though.

Of course, I could be a smidgeon biased.

Originally Posted by Eönwë

I suspect that however much they complain here, most people on this thread (and the entire forum, for that matter) will go out and watch the films, just as they did with LOTR.

I have DVDS of all three movies. But two of them are still wrapped in cellophane.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Everyone has his or her own tastes, which we should respect.

Which is why I didn't give any specific examples... but now you mention it I'll retract that "entirely justified", because as you say people are allowed to like anything, and in fact I have a soft spot myself for some extremely silly films.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But for perspective, I would humbly suggest looking at the lists of best films of the "Noughties". Every one of them has its own axe to grind and own perspective to plug, but overall there's not many that put any of the Jackson films in the top ten. Even those that are heavily-weighted towards fantasy don't put LotR at the top, even when including some part of the trilogy in the top ten. And when the comparison extends to best films of all times, incorporating the legendary films of the twentieth century, Jackson's trilogy just fades.

I'd agree with you there– and two or three years ago you would have found me arguing against people who thought everyone "had" to like the LotR movies, or that they were among the greatest films of all time. I think they went through a period of being overrated just because people were so impressed with Jackson's achievement in making a viable movie trilogy out of an "unfilmable" book.

[narfforc]

Nerwen, I think you need to read what I wrote again. This is another meaning to it than the one you have come to.

I have all four released versions of this trilogy of films, I never said I didn't like them, I only hinted at the storyline problems. I go to the cinema quite often, at least once a week, and when The Hobbit is released I will be at the front of the queue. The vast majority of my work collegues will watch the pirate DVD, these are the PEOPLE who I alluded to. Peter Jackson made those films for an audience which probably does not use this site, and I would probably guess that ten time more Non-Tolkien fans watched them than the likes of us. Maybe many people read the book after the film, if they did I thank Peter Jackson for that. However, when I mention the book to anyone, the general response is that they have seen the films, for them I feel sorry. You only have to look at the total confusion that The Witch-king vs Gandalf discussion has caused. Tolkien left that moment in the book as one of tense suspense, Peter Jackson decides that he would alter this, why, so that the people watching his version would gain a different perspective than the one which Tolkien wanted to portray. I do not remember any argument about this situation before the films, Tolkien's words were enough, as I said, it is not what Jackson leaves out, it's what he puts in. So to finish, yes I do like the films, I have all the books about the films, I have 13 swords, 6 helmets, two shields, two staffs and hundreds of the painted figures from them. My house is full of Tolkien, I have over 400 books on/of his works, which includes 65 copies of The Lord of the Rings, 20 Silmarillions and 43 Hobbits. I have seen the Baksi version, listened to the radio play, watched the Jackson versions and seen both the Stage Play and The One Man Lord of the Rings. I welcome all types of medium to the expansion of his works. I know a number of Tolkien artists on first names terms and consider them my friends, but it doesn't stop me telling them if I like a piece of their art or not. I am not bitter about Jackson, only his additions.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I'd agree with you there– and two or three years ago you would have found me arguing against people who thought everyone "had" to like the LotR movies, or that they were among the greatest films of all time. I think they went through a period of being overrated just because people were so impressed with Jackson's achievement in making a viable movie trilogy out of an "unfilmable" book.

It's interesting how something can catch interest, but then wane as time goes on.

I remember going to see Return of the Jedi about ten or twelve times when it came out. It was a favourite Friday afternoon activity for those of us who wanted to avoid doing any more serious research for the week.

Now, if it's on tv, I won't make any extra effort to catch it. Maybe that's because I was thoroughly unimpressed by Anakin Skywalker's story.

Originally Posted by narfforc

So to finish, yes I do like the films, I have all the books about the films, I have 13 swords, 6 helmets, two shields, two staffs and hundreds of the painted figures from them. My house is full of Tolkien, I have over 400 books on/of his works, which includes 65 copies of The Lord of the Rings, 20 Silmarillions and 43 Hobbits. I have seen the Baksi version, listened to the radio play, watched the Jackson versions and seen both the Stage Play and The One Man Lord of the Rings.

narf, you've omitted a certain Blue Wizard's costume I think. Is it in your closet or your attic or is it already packed?

If the movie is ever eventually made, I would be really interested in knowing what ideas Del Toro had which didn't make it into the movie.