|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 31 2007, 3:10pm
Post #76 of 89
(688 views)
Shortcut
|
to conclude that changes to the movies were made for commercial reasons, unless there's an interview with Peter that says that which I haven't seen. Peter was first given the go-ahead for a two-movie treatment, and when that deal fell through, he was given a brief period of time to proffer the script to other studios. New Line was his last chance since every other studio turned him down. It was New Line that contracted for three movies, so Peter, Fran and Philippa had to scramble to expand their treatment to three movies. Because they were a bit rushed, changes continued throughout the filming, and many of the changes brought the movies closer to the books. There were several copies of the books on set, and many members of the cast and the crew were huge Tolkien fans and suggested several changes.
Peter is about as anti-commercial one could find in the movie industry. Most of the principal photography was finished before the first movie was released, so he had no idea if the movies would be popular or not. Peter did make changes as part of his adaptation because some scenes would not work in the movie, and he made some changes to broaden the appeal of the movies beyond the book readers, but he had a significant responsibility, and I think he did the best he could. Peter was entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars, and he had an obligation to the studio to make the best movie he could so they could get their money back and hopefully make a profit. In addition, Peter was responsible for the jobs of everyone at WETA, and he had to do what he could so they could keep their jobs. If he made some changes to make the movies appeal to a broader audience, I'm willing to accept that because I don't like the consequences if the movies weren't successful.
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.
NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Jan 2 2008, 5:03pm
Post #77 of 89
(685 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I remember those horrible XenArwen rumours
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wasn't posting here then, but I used to check the site almost daily for news on the film progression. I was quite worried over some of those Xenarwen rumours. And sadly, a couple of them remained true, and Glorfindel dissapeared because of it.
And Huron. . . You KNOW I am with you 100 percent on the Gandalf business. Thank God the breaking of the staff by the Nazgul Lord only appears on the extended dvd. Otherwise I might have been typing to you from a prison cell, rather than from the comfort of my study.lol. Every time an unread fan of the films comes to me thinking that bit of extended crap is true I go into a rant. . . and Fume! Fume! Fume!
Uh! The Horror. I am angered just typing about it. The mere notion that a phatom emissary of Sauron the Maia could overwhelm a Maia (Angelic) emissary of The Valar and Eru Himself. Ludicrous! And in a matter of seconds??! H#LL NAW! If The Wraith King could so easily manage Gandalf the White, then surely all Nine of the Wraith Lords together would have easily and quickly handled Gandalf The Gray. But NOOO! The Account is clear, they fled before him in the day "For they felt the coming of my anger and dared not face it while the sun was in the sky." And at night when they besieged him, all as a unit, the battle lasted from dusk till dawn and still could not defeat The Gray Wizard's brillaint flame!
One of my GREATEST hopes for the Hobbit films are that they properly redress and amend the disservice done to Gandalf's magic in the Rings films. It is one of the reasons that, while I am very happy to know that Jackson will be involved on the production in, to which I believe he will contribute wonderfully, I am also rather glad that there may be a different director. My hope is that this director is not shy of light and flame, and is not so arrogant as to assume that their diminished vision of Gandalf's magic is somehow more appropriate than Tolkien's own.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
TomthePilgrim
Rohan
Jan 2 2008, 6:39pm
Post #78 of 89
(673 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Making a Movie out a Novel . . .
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Commercial reasons were not, as far as I can tell from the interviews on the Extended edition DVD's, a major concern of Peter Jackson. Trust me, I've watched most of those interviews multiple times, wasting away a number of days watching the two, three even four of the PJ Appendixes discs. But, I do believe that commercial concerns are included in the actions of most directors. Even if they don't understand that it's even there . . .
PJ is a big fan of the books. He is also a successful film director. So, when it came to filming the trilogy, he was often torn (pun intended) between omitting great description, dialog, stories and scenes so that he could create a powerful, coherent film experience. How many of us understood the immensity of the LOTR the first time. None of us, I would expect. The trilogy, as I previously stated in this thread, is timeless with endless depth. A written work of fiction can not be properly portrayed on film.
PJ also noted in his interviews that he had to make adjustments to bring in to an audience that had never read the books. Certain changes, such as Arwen becoming more visible, replacing Glorfindel (AARRRRGGGGHHHHHHH), the Xenarwen plans, all intended to narrow down the number of characters a non-fan would have to absorb during the viewing. Adding a more obvious romantic storyline within a storyline is a must for most successful films.
I listened to PJ and PB justify the changes to the Faramir character and the trip to Osgiliath, and I understand why they did it. Condone, no. Understand, yes.
Trying to ensure the film's viablility to a larger audience must certainly include some concern over the commercial success of a film. A director who creates a film that isn't viewed is defeating the purpose of creating a film. And he/she certainly won't receive financial backing for his project unless money can be made.
Another point I'd like to make. I don't expect the Hobbit on film to be the same as the LOTR on film. They are diferent in form and in portrayal. The Hobbit was written as a children's book and, while Mr. Unwin requested a follow-up of the Hobbit from JRRT, the LOTR was not that. It was darker, deeper and more emotional.
A new director might be a good thing . . .
"I am Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!"
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Jan 2 2008, 7:42pm
Post #79 of 89
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree, and I agree, and I agree, especially about the differences between
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings. I hope THe Hobbit doesn't go too dark, though the prequel is welcomed to be both dark and epic. Let us pray Tom that Glorfindel will be restored and gently avenged in at least one of The Hobbit films as a speaking Council member.
As to the changes, I greatly appreciated the Arwen/Aragorn love story (and found Liv to be a very sexy elf  ). But Glorfindel could still have been sqezzed in, just as Haldir was. And as to the dimming down of Gandalf's magic. . . unacceptable. There is no reason that could not have been concluded, even if scenes were switched so that he showed off more against the goblins in Moria than with wargs on the mountain side. Those things could have been done without adding more than a few minutes to the film. And Galadriel could have EXPLAINED why Frodo's coming was as the footseps of Doom to the elves in a single paragraph, just as she does in the novels.
Anyway, its happening SOON. Check Lord of THe Rings.Net You know its real when the old official movie site announces it.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
HUORN
The Shire
Jan 3 2008, 2:48am
Post #80 of 89
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
Would anyone making a movie based on a book ever admit they are not being faithful to a book? Of course they're going to say they respect the author. The changes are beyond necessary for a movie. What must that original script been like? (shudder)
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 3 2008, 4:32am
Post #81 of 89
(671 views)
Shortcut
|
wasn't out of distrust since there wasn't anything yet to trust, merely rampant curiosity and insatiable greed for knowledge. Movies were being made out of our favorite book and we just had to know everything we could about it. Set spies were not hired, recruited, or sent by TORn - they were just people who knew where the filming was happening and crawled over hillsides and such trying to get a glimpse. When they saw something they sent it to the "spymaster" email here and it got posted on the front page and we all read and speculated and argued over it.
TORn actually became connected with the shoot when Tehanu (one of our founders) was served with a restraining order on the mistaken belief that she was one of the set spies. She was not, and as apology, TORn was extended an official invitation to the set...and the rest is history.
And we didn't demand changes (we leave that to those who thrive on creating petitions) - they merely saw the reaction when we and other sites got reports of Arwen on battlefield sets and took it into consideration. They watched the boards and we suspected they watched the boards and then we found it out for sure when they directly responded to what was said here. They found us to be a helpful barometer of fan reaction, which pleased us as well as them.
And that blind loyalty to PJ you mention - that came as a result of seeing the finished movies. No one had blind trust in anything during the filming. Many people predicted utter disaster. The truth is that compared to the rumors and the fears of many and the predictions of financial doom in the media, the finished movies were considered nothing short of miraculous and are passionately loved as such. I know that's hard to believe for those who didn't love them, but that's the way it is - and why you cannot talk the PJ-supporters out of their position, try as you will.
I quite love them myself. 
Silverlode
"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories
|
|
|
HUORN
The Shire
Jan 3 2008, 5:11am
Post #82 of 89
(678 views)
Shortcut
|
wow.
I really wish I could share it the enthusiasm. I tried and did in the theater up until after Bree. Then when I saw the EE FOTR and could live with it. TFT for me was just too much. ROTK I enjoyed. But they are not movies I care to see over and over like I thought I would. What I love most in the books is the dialogue between the characters and the interactions of their personalities and the depths of the characters and I just found that missing in the movies. The dialogue was not interesting to me. The music didn't work for me. I watched the Potter movies and wished LOTR could have hadmusic like that and been as "boring" as that and just put thebook on the screen like that. I think the harry potter movies will be more classic than PJ's. The lack of a good script will become evident as special effects get better. The original star wars movies will outlive the prequels because of the better storyline.
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 3 2008, 5:38am
Post #83 of 89
(663 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter is about as anti-commercial one could find in the movie industry ...
Peter was entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars, and he had an obligation to the studio to make the best movie he could so they could get their money back and hopefully make a profit.
I'm not saying Jackson could responsibly have done otherwise, but someone who is truly opposed to commercialism would let the studio's profit go hang. Or not have made a studio movie in the first place.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
We're on hiatus Dec. 24-Jan. 6 for the holidays.
Join us Jan. 7-13 for "Strider".
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 3 2008, 6:06am
Post #84 of 89
(673 views)
Shortcut
|
someone who is truly opposed to commercialism would let the studio's profit go hang. I've never been able to see why "not being commercial" should require someone to be either ignorant or indifferent to money matters. Is it impossible to be intelligent about money and markets and pursue artistry and excellence at the same time? It seems to me a rather tired stereotype of the Artistic Personality that they cannot have money smarts as well, or perhaps a lazy excuse.
I rather think it's the studio which looks after the studio's profit, in any case. Hence the notorious amount of interfering "notes" from executives during filming and the final editing privileges they reserve to themselves.
In order to avoid that, a director can choose not to make a "studio movie", of course. But fundraising for independent films can be difficult, especially if one is so very uncommercial as to despise profits. And money is useful in expanding the palette of options for even the most "indie" of filmmakers, and more so if one has visions requiring expensive technical expertise.
Ah, what a sordid business a life devoted to art can be! One might be better off not making movies at all.....  
Silverlode
"Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them.
Creative fantasy, because it is mainly trying to do something else [make something new], may open your hoard and let all the locked things fly away like cage-birds. The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you." -On Fairy Stories
(This post was edited by Silverlode on Jan 3 2008, 7:29am)
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Jan 3 2008, 6:34am
Post #85 of 89
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
One might be better off not making movies at all.....
Yes, exactly. Art for art's sake!
Of course, I know what Orson Welles said about movies and money.
But then, for all his financial wisdom, only one of his films was released the way he intended it to be.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
We're on hiatus Dec. 24-Jan. 6 for the holidays.
Join us Jan. 7-13 for "Strider".
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 3 2008, 9:39pm
Post #86 of 89
(654 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter was entrusted with someone else's money. They gave him the money because he made a commitment to make a movie, and he had an obligation to return as much of a profit as he could. That doesn't make him commercial, at least how I would define it. A commercial movie would have been so much worse, (just think what the Weinstein brothers wanted to do! Girl hobbits!!!!). but Peter was able to achieve a balance between his fiduciary responsibility to the studio and making a movie that was fairly close to Tolkien.
In reality, money for movies is rarely the "studio's money" but I'm using that as a shortcut term. Studios raise hundreds of millions of dollars from various investors - wealthy individuals and corporations. In order to make a partcular movie, studios often form limited partnerships and the investors purchase shares in that partnership. The proceeds from the sales of the shares are what is used to make a movie and sometimes the studios invest their own money. Silver Screen Partners is a very well-known group of movie partnerships, and you'll often see "Silver Screen Partners XXX" where XXX is a number, buried somewhere in the credits of a movie. In the very early days of my career I prepared a tax return for a wealthy individual and they owned a teeny ownership percent of a partnership that produced "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
I don't get the "art for art's sake" either. For hundreds of years, artists often indentured themselves to a wealthy person or member of the nobility, and they produced what the benefactor wanted. Government funding for the arts, and the notion of "artistic freedom" is fairly recent. Movie-making is a business, and Peter has done a good job remaining independent while working the levers of the business model.
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.
NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Jan 3 2008, 11:18pm
Post #87 of 89
(655 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Listen, I greatly enjoyed Peters films, I have watched them repeatedly,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have recommend them to many, I broght others along in droves to see them, I have bought the DVDs for relatives, have held viewings with friends on my big screen, and have shown them to my children. They are great films, and good adaptations.
Yet they could have been better as films and as adaptations, if Peter had left out a little more of himself and left in a little more of the source material. THERE IS NO REASON GALADRIEL COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN THE 30 TO 1 MINUTE NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN WHY FRODO'S COMING WAS AS THE FOOTSTEP OF DOOM TO THE ELVES! THERE IS NO REASON WHY GANDALF'S MAGIC HAD TO BE SO TRUNCATED AND DIMMED, OTHER THAN THAT PETER DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW IT, AND THERE IS NO REASON A SCENE LIKE DENETHOR'S PASSING HAD TO BECOME A GAG REEL AND A TRAVESTY, RATHER THAN BEING SHOWN IN A MANNER CLOSER TO THAT DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK, even if time restraints caused the palantir to be deleted.
Peter did a good job of translating a difficult text to cinema, but he did not do a perfect job by any means. Some of his trimming was superflous, going beyond what was needed for time constraints, and falling into the realm of "I Peter, personally dislike or am uninterested in this aspect, or this scene, so I will leave it out whether it is relevant or not, and whether it will really effect total running time or it won't". I am not a Peter Hater, and GREATLY appreciate what he did, but I will not pretend his achievement was without flaws, or that he is somehow the only person who can do justice by these works.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 4 2008, 1:43am
Post #88 of 89
(646 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not sure why you're shouting
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and I'm searching for commonality between what you said and the context of this particular discussion. But to respond to the points you have raised, I don't think Gandalf was diminished all that much, and I agree about Denethor.
Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.
NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows
|
|
|
AinurOlorin
Half-elven
Jan 4 2008, 9:40am
Post #89 of 89
(690 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wasn't shouting, I was just speaking loudly. lol and speaking To Silverlode,really
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Sorry if I startled you. The context seems off, because while I technically replied to the last person to post here (you), my response was really to the last comment Silverlode had made.
Also I meant the 30 seconds to one minute needed for Galadriel's explicatory paragraph. And Gandalf's magic WAS diminished big time. It was worse in the extended with the staff fiasco that I can hardly bear to speak on. But in the text of Fellowship and of ROTK, Gandalf performs far more spectacular displays than in the films, and he enacts them more frequently. Their deletion leaves him looking like a less able Wizard than he is, especially to the unread, and especailly when some of the instances of his using magic in film one are countered against Saruman, who shows him up each time. A real injustice was done to him, that I HOPE is not repeated in The Hobbit.
"Hear me, hounds of Sauron, Gandalf is here! Fly if you value your foul skins, I will shrivel you from tail to snout if you step within this circle!"
"Do not be to eager to deal out death in judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends."
(This post was edited by AinurOlorin on Jan 4 2008, 9:43am)
|
|
|
|
|
