View Full Version : Peter Jackson passed over for The Hobbit and LOTR Prequel by New Line
The Blind King of Bohemia
11-20-2006, 15:49
Taken from an e-mail PJ sent to theonering.net:
Dear One Ringers,
As you know, there's been a lot of speculation about The Hobbit. We are often asked about when or if this film will ever be made. We have always responded that we would be very interested in making the film - if it were offered to us to make.
You may also be aware that Wingnut Films has bought a lawsuit against New Line, which resulted from an audit we undertook on part of the income of The Fellowship of the Ring. Our attitude with the lawsuit has always been that since it's largely based on differences of opinion about certain accounting practices, we would like an independent body - whether it be a judge, a jury, or a mediator, to look at the issues and make an unbiased ruling. We are happy to accept whatever that ruling is. In our minds, it's not much more complex than that and that's exactly why film contracts include right-to-audit clauses.
However, we have always said that we do not want to discuss The Hobbit with New Line until the lawsuit over New Line's accounting practices is resolved. This is simple common sense - you cannot be in a relationship with a film studio, making a complex, expensive movie and dealing with all the pressures and responsibilities that come with the job, while an unresolved lawsuit exists.
We have also said that we do not want to tie settlement of the lawsuit to making a film of The Hobbit. In other words, we would have to agree to make The Hobbit as a condition of New Line settling our lawsuit. In our minds this is not the right reason to make a film and if a film of The Hobbit went ahead on this basis, it would be doomed. Deciding to make a movie should come from the heart - it's not a matter of business convenience. When you agree to make a film, you're taking on a massive commitment and you need to be driven by an absolute passion to want to get the story on screen. It's that passion, and passion alone, that gives the movie its imagination and heart. To us it is not a cold-blooded business decision.
A couple of months ago there was a flurry of Hobbit news in the media. MGM, who own a portion of the film rights in The Hobbit, publicly stated they wanted to make the film with us. It was a little weird at the time because nobody from New Line had ever spoken to us about making a film of The Hobbit and the media had some fun with that. Within a week or two of those stories, our Manager Ken Kamins got a call from the co-president of New Line Cinema, Michael Lynne, who in essence told Ken that the way to settle the lawsuit was to get a commitment from us to make the Hobbit, because "that's how these things are done". Michael Lynne said we would stand to make much more money if we tied the lawsuit and the movie deal together and this may well be true, but it's still the worst reason in the world to agree to make a film.
Several years ago, Mark Ordesky told us that New Line have rights to make not just The Hobbit but a second "LOTR prequel", covering the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR. Since then, we've always assumed that we would be asked to make The Hobbit and possibly this second film, back to back, as we did the original movies. We assumed that our lawsuit with the studio would come to a natural conclusion and we would then be free to discuss our ideas with the studio, get excited and jump on board. We've assumed that we would possibly get started on development and design next year, whilst filming The Lovely Bones. We even had a meeting planned with MGM executives to talk through our schedule.
However last week, Mark Ordesky called Ken and told him that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on the Hobbit and the LOTR 'prequel'. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker for both projects.
Ordesky said that New Line has a limited time option on the film rights they have obtained from Saul Zaentz (this has never been conveyed to us before), and because we won't discuss making the movies until the lawsuit is resolved, the studio is going to have to hire another director.
Given that New Line are committed to this course of action, we felt at the very least, we owed you, the fans, a straightforward account of events as they have unfolded for us.
We have always had the greatest support from The Ringers and we are very sorry our involvement with The Hobbit has been ended in this way. Our journey into Tolkien's world started with a phone call from Ken Kamins to Harvey Weinstein in Nov 1995 and ended with a phone call from Mark Ordesky to Ken in Nov 2006. It has been a great 11 years.
This outcome is not what we anticipated or wanted, but neither do we see any positive value in bitterness and rancor. We now have no choice but to let the idea of a film of The Hobbit go and move forward with other projects.
We send our very best wishes to whomever has the privilege of making The Hobbit and look forward to seeing the film on the big screen.
Warmest regards to you all, and thanks for your incredible support over the years.
We got to go there - but not back again ...
I'm very upset and disgusted by this news, and rest assured I won't be seeing whatever crock they put out without Jackson at the helm. If they have any scruples WETA, McKellen, Serkis, Weaving and Howard Shore won't join either, and then the whole thing will really be revealed for the pile of crap its destined to be now. How can New Line be as treacherous as this? I mean even if you don't like the films you could clearly see the effort Jackson put into them and to not be able to conclude them is a travesty for him, his production team and every fan worldwide.
I just hope the uproar will cause New Line to change their minds before its too late.
Ah, it's going to be rubbish. And whoever picks it up knows they have no chance of ever making one as good as Jackson managed, so it will be even worse because they won't care.
A pity. The original films weren't brilliant, but they are entertaining, and alot of effort went into the visuals, and atmosphere which Jackson got pretty spot on. Without that atmosphere the film simply won't work.
the rings movies were boring as hell anyway......
3 full movies of a bunch of people walking to a volcano.....please...
the rings movies were boring as hell anyway......
3 full movies of a bunch of people walking to a volcano.....please...
Well that is basically the story told in the books...
the rings movies were boring as hell anyway......
3 full movies of a bunch of people walking to a volcano.....please...
Les goûts et les couleurs, on ne dispute pas.
HOW DARE YOU !! BARBARIAN !! :wall:
~:cheers:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2006, 17:46
I never really like Jackson's style. Too long and overblown and it never really strikes you deep when it's supposed too.
Although it could be worse I suppose...
https://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9067/mnighthobbitcw1.jpg
With Shyamalan casting himself as the lead role.
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 17:49
the rings movies were boring as hell anyway......
3 full movies of a bunch of people walking to a volcano.....please...I walked out halfway the first one. That was 12,50 euro wasted.
:coffeenews:
The Blind King of Bohemia
11-20-2006, 17:52
the rings movies were boring as hell anyway......
3 full movies of a bunch of people walking to a volcano.....please...
Yeah but it wasn't though was it, really? I mean if you're going to make a ridiculous comment you could at least try and make it plausible.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-20-2006, 17:54
https://img79.imageshack.us/img79/7539/michaelbaythehobbitbl6.jpg
Hehe
At least it won't be 5 hours long.
Mount Suribachi
11-20-2006, 17:55
Not that fussed. Jackson's take on LOTR was very dark, and I liked that. The Hobbit however is a kids story, and reads like one compared to LOTR. I don't know if PJ has it in him to do The Hobbit in that less dark way. There aren't many Spielbergs out there whose range of movies go from ET to Schindlers List.
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 18:29
Yeah but it wasn't though was it, really? I mean if you're going to make a ridiculous comment you could at least try and make it plausible.I don't know about Ronin, but I actually walked out because during scene after scene I just couldn't contain my laughter. It was all so - so amateurish, so ridiculously overstated and totally devoid of drama. By the time this army of black creatures (don't remember what it's called) came on screen, hampered by plastic hump-backs and a severe lack of acting capabilities (or dentistry, for that matter) my companions advised me to withdraw to the lobby and light one up, which I was only too happy to do.
Proletariat
11-20-2006, 19:06
I walked out half way because I couldn't stand the Hobbits accents. I guess somewhere it must be written that heroes in any fantasy film must have over the top, fruity English accents, but I just couldn't deal with the, 'Oh Gandalf! It is truly grand to see you again!' crap over and over.
Fine, give them Euro accents for a swords and shields and magic feel, but tone it down a little, for God's sake.
Adrian II
11-20-2006, 19:23
I walked out half way because I couldn't stand the Hobbits accents. I guess somewhere it must be written that heroes in any fantasy film must have over the top, fruity English accents, but I just couldn't deal with the, 'Oh Gandalf! It is truly grand to see you again!' crap over and over.
Fine, give them Euro accents for a swords and shields and magic feel, but tone it down a little, for God's sake.It is that corniness that makes many children's movies so hard to stomach. It has earned Harry Potter no shortage of salacious nicknames in Dutch which I shall not reproduce here for fear of being smitten by Your Moderateness.
:bow:
yesdachi
11-20-2006, 19:26
I liked all three of them (I took them for what they were) and think a Hobbit movie would be fun (seeing the dragon in a similar fashion as the Balrog would be sweet), but I don’t think PJ is the only person capable of making it, just the most logical.
Hobbits couldn't have any other sorts of accents could they?
I mean you can't imagine a hobbit with a funny hat, a thin cigarette, and a deep French accent lounging around in his garden, possibly throwing things at passing ringwaithes, if he could be bothered.
scotchedpommes
11-20-2006, 21:06
I can understand why fans of the series could be upset, although having
watched the last film on tele last night, I can say I wasn't very taken with any
of the films. More so due to the pathetic nature of the two main hobbits and
certain other aspects, rather than accents in particular. To walk out of a film for
that reason alone seems ridiculous.
Perhaps now it will be toned down for you, though.
I quite enjoyed the films - i thought the acting was okay, and the battle scenes impressive, all in all good films :2thumbsup:
Lorenzo_H
11-20-2006, 22:17
at the time i loved them...now not so much
Roman_Man#3
11-20-2006, 22:36
i loved the films. i can see why some people would walk out because of the length, and they coudlnt stomach that(which is a lttle whacky), but because the accents were "bad", that IS totally ridiculous.
CLERKS II Tells it like it is about the rings movies
YOUTUBE Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiXaV73_DL8)
Warning: language
couldn´t have said it better myself :2thumbsup:
The Wizard
11-21-2006, 00:01
The books were rubbish where the movies were actually entertaining. They weren't, of course, top-of-the-line, but the first two were actually a notch or two above your average action movie. The third one got old halfway through that big battle near the white tower... but not as old as the books were by page two. :smash:
Proletariat
11-21-2006, 00:36
It wasn't the accents alone. The jarring pastel look I remember most of the scenes having coupled with a story I've never thought much of set up the accents to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
The story was written with more emphasis on the setting than a character plot or action plot, and I could never really get past that. As a movie it seemed even more silly, imho.
Anyway, I'll bid the thread adieu before I burn too many bridges by insulting such a Orgah popular film, but none of you Tolkein fanboys are ever allowed to make fun of Kevin Costner's Robin Hood if you think accents are such a minor issue in making a decent film.
Edit: AdrianII: Salacious names, eh? PM plz!11
Dutch_guy
11-21-2006, 00:52
I never quite understood why they didn't just fly the hobbits over mount doom and just threw the Ring in it. That said, I enjoyed the books a lot, and the movies too. Frodo, however, got on my nerves in all three of the movies which is a shame, since he isn't half as irritating and...feminine... in the books.
:balloon2:
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 01:09
Edit: AdrianII: Salacious names, eh? PM plz!11They would suffer all too grievously in translation, mylady.
Suffice it to say that they involve the exploitation of Mr Potter's manly parts and fundament in ways that would be contrary to the spirit of childrens' amusement.
:toff:
Incongruous
11-21-2006, 01:29
What Kevin Costner used in Robin Hood was no accent.
'Twas an abomination unto Nuggin!
Reverend Joe
11-21-2006, 04:05
The first movie was the only good one. Frankly, the really, really, REALLY gay overtones with the hobbits got old very fast, and the lack of blood completely ruined the rest of the series. But the first was a decent, entertaining adventure movie.
The books, by the way, start out well, but they turn into the freakin' bible halfway through. it makes them unreadable.
ajaxfetish
11-21-2006, 05:46
I very much enjoyed both the books and the films. The way it looks like New Line is heading now, it seems I won't be seeing the Hobbit afterall. A shame.
Ajax
Frodo, however, got on my nerves in all three of the movies which is a shame, since he isn't half as irritating and...feminine... in the books.
With his squeaking and groaning! GAH! Irritating :furious3:.
scotchedpommes
11-21-2006, 08:48
Frankly, the really, really, REALLY gay overtones with the hobbits got old very fast...
and
With his squeaking and groaning! GAH! Irritating :furious3:.
...would be the other aspects that began to niggle away, I have to say.
Oh come on, the movies weren't that bad at all, they were a lot of fun. Big story, big environment, lots of characters, epic battles, good vs.evil and all that rot. I watched all three a few weekends ago while it rained and rained outside. Great diversion.
Unless we dug up Eisenstein and asked him to direct the LOTR trilogy with a cast of a million Russians (which would have been great!), I'm not sure anyone could have done better than Jackson.
I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2006, 12:43
Well, I didn't think they sucked, they were fun. But as far as that genre goes (which genre is it really btw?), "The Mummy" or "Pirates" were much better. You can laugh at bad dialogue without thinking it was meant to be serious. LOTR lacks in humor and females, and takes itself to seriously. Of course in a way those aren't legitimate criticisms because they are made from books, but they do make the movies less enjoyable.
(which genre is it really btw?)
Hmm, good question.
Epic fantasy?
Avicenna
11-21-2006, 13:31
Hobbits with French accents:
[fast-forward]
Bilbo: Go away, Dwarvish Kniggets, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Hobbits with French accents:
[fast-forward]
Bilbo: Go away, Dwarvish Kniggets, or I shall taunt you a second time!
:laugh4:
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 13:49
I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..
My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.
My oldest is firmly into Harry Potter, which is to say he loves the hype of there being always a next book, another film, another computer game around Harry, always a new 'curse' you can cast on your friends in the playground. But he also realises that the Potter stories are gone the moment you've read or seen them. However, six months later is he still fascinated with the witch in Throne of Blood, Kurosawa's 'Hamlet', trying to imitate (and finally, truly understand) his incredibly beautiful, ethereal song... 'What is it that men strive for in this fleeting abode called life...'
Red Peasant
11-21-2006, 15:18
Sorry Adey, lah, but you really are a screaming snob. :laugh4:
I can imagine you inflicting existentialist-angst movies by Ingmar Strindberg and baffling, French Art-House flicks on your kids even while they were still in the womb.
I think crazy people like you are great, but I wouldn't have wanted you for a dad!
:dizzy2:
Adrian II
11-21-2006, 15:22
Sorry Adey, lah, but you really are a screaming snob. :laugh4:
I can imagine you inflicting existentialist-angst movies by Ingmar Strindberg and baffling, French Art-House flicks on your kids even while they were still in the womb.
I think crazy people like you are great, but I wouldn't have wanted you for a dad!
:dizzy2:Whoah, who says I push anything down my kids' throats? Let alone Ingmar Angstberg flicks. :laugh4:
I wouldn't expose them to three hours of Kurosawa if they hated it. Come on. It's the kids themselves who ask for more. And like I said, my oldest is in deep Potter doodoo and I don't discourage that at all.
I may not be the best Dad in the world, but I guarantee you won't see my kids on Jerry Springer ten years from now...
"My Dad's a snob and I hate him!" :angry:
EDIT
Come to think of it, I believe my kids are making a sort of gradual switch from externalized drama (bloody fights involving superphat armies with cool weapons) to internalized drama. When my oldest had to chose a book to review before his school class, he picked The curse of Polyphemos which is a children's version of the Odyssee, because the hero 'is a smart guy who masters himself so he can master storms and monsters and women and stuff'.
That's my boy. 'Master women', haha. If only we could - and we'd probably be the worse for it anyway.
Red Peasant
11-21-2006, 15:36
Forgive the previous hyperbole, but it's just the impression you give, mate! ~;)
As for Lotr, I thought that it was pretty good by general cinematic standards considering the technical difficulties of filming a convincing fantasy epic of that nature. That is, apart from the sickening 'Brigadoon' opening and the ending of the last instalment that kept beginning ... and ending ... and beginning ... etcetera. I stood up and down about five times at the end of that movie, repeatedly thinking it had finished. I assumed PJ was giving us a workout after spending aeons on our asses.
The books weren't crap, in fact they were very good, if you've the patience to read them. If you haven't then you're probably not into that type of book, in which case don't buy/read the book in the first place.
The same goes for the Movies, not brilliant, a bit too self indulgent in the effects department, cliched, alot of wooden acting especially from "Frodo". As to the really, really gay overtones in the movie, they were in the books also, but the movies went too far with it. Basically Hobbit Culture seemed to be different to human culture in that Hobbits don't worry if there best friend is gay if he gives them a hug or whatever. An interesting aspect in some ways, annoying in others. It didn't worry me too much.
Despite all of the negatives the films were entertaining and fun. I'm not sure what some people expected from it? If you watch every film with the mindset of a hard nosed film critic and the attitude of a snob, then few films will be worth your while paying for. Save your money and wait for it to be on TV.
So easy to criticise the LOTR movies, because everyone does it, not so easy to point out the positives. That is that they are entertaining, contain some good cinematics and effects and are always a it with the kids.
:2thumbsup:
W.H. Auden, in the booklet coming with a J.R.R. Tolkien Soundbook:
I presume that most people who buy this record will already have read Professor Tolkien's tetralogy, and I hope it will persuade anybody who has not, to do so at once. A prospective reader, however, should, I think, be warned: "This is a work that will either totally enthrall you or leave you stone cold, and, whichever your response, nothing and nobody will ever change it." As a member of the enchanted party, I have found by experience that it is quite useless to argue with the unconverted.
This goes for the films also, of course, and being a member of the enchanted party I'll not argue either: I don't care much for other people's criticism of the story (as to me these are minor points), and I know that the unconverted will care even less for the great love I and others have for Tolkien's work. Just so long as the criticism doesn't turn to ridicule, I'm fine with it all - but sadly, ridicule is all you'll get from a whole lot of people who don't 'get it'.
Now, on the topic: regardless of anyone's opinion of Jackson's work, I think New Line are showing their bad side here - the Hollywood film studio side - and their treatment of Jackson seems to be just vile and treacherous. After all, if it wasn't for the man's creative input, they wouldn't have had those millions of dollars to cheat him out of. Even if they manage to still pull together a half-decent Hobbit movie, I'm not sure I'll be wanting to go and watch it - unlike a previous poster, I had actually been looking forward to the darker, more mature feel that Jackson might have brought to the story.
Anyway, a Variety article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117954301.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) has MGM, which holds the distribution rights for "The Hobbit", saying that "the matter of Peter Jackson directing 'The Hobbit' films is far from closed." Regardless of PJ's involvement or lack thereof, Weta at any rate is still "hopeful that we may be invited to work on The Hobbit", according to chief Richard Taylor. So New Line will have that going for their film, but if they fail to get actors like McKellen onboard, I doubt any good will ever come of the project. Or rather, I'll be highly sceptical wether the 'new guys' do a good job or not.
Mount Suribachi
11-21-2006, 18:43
Wow, some serious intellectual snobbery in this thread. I'd post a picture from "The Critics" in Viz, but it would be against forum rules ~;)
Sasaki Kojiro
11-21-2006, 18:50
One word: Kurosawa. Although I doubt that you would consider that to be the same genre at all..
My kids (8 and 11) adored Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and the huge epics such as Ran. I don't want to be a snob about this, but even my kids notice the difference between real drama and the watered-down version of LOTR which, for all its computer-generated scenery and duplicate extra's, is as dramatically empty as that bottle of Bordeaux I finished yesterday.
Yes, of course Kurosawa is going to be better than LOTR. But there's more to movies than drama. Shallow movies can be plenty enjoyable, I find people who hate them as odd as people who refuse to watch movies that have subtitles.
Don't get me wrong, I adore Kurosawa, but the LOTR films were fine for what they were. I wouldn't want P. Jackson to do a film of King Lear, and I wouldn't want Kurosawa to direct The Hobbit.
The theatrical releases of the LOTR films were kind of, um, bad. Too herky-jerky, too all-action all-the-time, but the DVD extended releases are surprisingly good. Stick some quiet moments back in, allow a tiny bit of character development, and suddenly you have a much better film.
I re-read the books after I'd seen all three films, and I made an interesting discovery -- almost everything that bothered me in the films was in the books. There's something to be said for a very, very faithful reproduction.
I think P.J. is well within his rights to hold out for what he's owed -- artists being bent over and used roughly by questionable accounting practices is an old, sad story. Whenever I see a filmmaker, writer, musician or what-have-you stand up for what's theirs, I give a little golf clap and mumble "bravo."
Adrian II
11-22-2006, 00:14
It is the inverted snobbery in this thread that is ridiculous. Having kids who love Homer or Kurosawa just as much as Harry Potter doesn't make me a bad Dad. Rather a lucky Dad, in fact.
:yes:
Having kids who love Homer or Kurosawa just as much as Harry Potter doesn't make me a bad Dad. Rather a lucky Dad, in fact.
:yes:
Absolutely. And with that I'm shamelessly going to quote here C.S. Lewis's opinion on The Ride of the Rohirrim, his favourite passage:
"That's at least as good as anything in Homer."
~D
Of course, er, Peter Jackson, ehhh... not so much, but still, love the bugger and his movies, for all their flaws.
AntiochusIII
11-23-2006, 04:00
Homer? Homer gets old very fast. -.-" He has his academics and cultural values, which are very interesting, but aside from that it's really not that spectacular as it's made out to be.
I mean, come on, I understand how the Greek culture views the likes of Achilles as heroic and all that -- they have a lecherous, fitful, perverted old man for a Supreme God after all. But for us to have English professors acting like snobs, proclaiming to appreciate the glory of Achilles' symbolism of manhood or something, something, and something...
I always feel nauseous. Achilles is just a touchy, self-centered, emo brat with a good luck and a strong arm. Get over it. I know the Greeks just consume melodrama; you don't have to pretend to be.
Thus, I am equally repulsed by extreme criticism of the Lord of the Rings (Oh noes! Plebeian entertainment! Shallowness! -- not you though, Adrian :bow: ) as I am by the fanatics who seems to think Professor Tolkien wrote an inviolable Holy Text with the subtlety of the true literary greats; you know, those kinds who seem to think the availability of mithril in Middle-Earth is something Earth-shattering.
Adrian II
11-23-2006, 13:30
Achilles is just a touchy, self-centered, emo brat with a good luck and a strong arm.Achilles is a dead man walking and fighting. He has been given a choice between leading the sedate life of a king in peacetime, admired by his people and respected by his opponents, but doomed to be forgotten soon after his death, or becoming a short-lived but unrivalled warrior, destined for the cruellest of battles and assured of eternal glory. He chose the latter. It makes him self-centred and bitter and causes him to turn against his comrades, although he is useful as well in that he is the only one to stand up against the haughty Agamemnon.
Odysseus, on the other hand, is a survivor. Although that does not exactly make him a push-over either, he explores, lives and loves life to the max. If you consider the passage in the Odyssee where he and Achilles meet in the underworld, you must admit there is more to these characters than emo vs metro.
Old? Yes. Irrelevant? Uh-uhn. :no:
Crazed Rabbit
11-23-2006, 19:17
Geesh, Arian, you seem to think drama means 'slow' (Kurosawa). ~;p
Sure, maybe the films aren't the slow paced Kurosawa films where the lack of action is assumed to be deep, meaningful drama, but they're good and entertaining.
Jackson screwed up in some parts, but he succeded by bringing the films to life.
And the books are marvelous works of literature - Tolkein deserves to be counted amoung the literary greats.
Crazed Rabbit
Sasaki Kojiro
11-23-2006, 19:33
Geesh, Arian, you seem to think drama means 'slow' (Kurosawa). ~;p
Sure, maybe the films aren't the slow paced Kurosawa films where the lack of action is assumed to be deep, meaningful drama, but they're good and entertaining.
Jackson screwed up in some parts, but he succeded by bringing the films to life.
And the books are marvelous works of literature - Tolkein deserves to be counted amoung the literary greats.
Crazed Rabbit
I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.
edit: you only think Kurosawa is slow because of this thing he does called "character development" :tongue3:
Sjakihata
11-23-2006, 19:42
I like LotR.
I like Akira Kurosawa.
I like apples.
I like pears.
I don't like redwine, though.
RE: slowness of Kurosawa. Watch the Seven Samurai and call him slow again.
Red Peasant
11-23-2006, 19:43
Achilles is a dead man walking and fighting. He has been given a choice between leading the sedate life of a king in peacetime, admired by his people and respected by his opponents, but doomed to be forgotten soon after his death, or becoming a short-lived but unrivalled warrior, destined for the cruellest of battles and assured of eternal glory. He chose the latter. It makes him self-centred and bitter and causes him to turn against his comrades, although he is useful as well in that he is the only one to stand up against the haughty Agamemnon.
Achilles is one of the greatest of literary creations, especially in epic poetry. You are right to defend him, and I wonder if other people, so many of whom say that he is only a selfish and shallow character, have actually 'read' the Iliad. He is the only character who thinks 'outside the box', so to speak. He contemplates the futility of war and killing in ways that have rarely been bettered since, and yet he is this killing machine, who goes on killing. Great character, and great literature. He is not a brat, and he is a much more complicated persona than Odysseus.
Soulforged
11-23-2006, 20:38
I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.Read the "Silmarillon". The trilogy of the Ring is more sintetic and pedagogic than anyother story of Tolkien. The Silmarillon won't be as attached to reality as you may want (i.e. still separates bad and good clearly) but the characters are, though less developed than in the trilogy, more varieded. However the story is still plagued with historical determinism, the ones that ought to fall will fall.
I think the movies were the greatest on its genre. The direction was above average, but the soundtrack was devastating, perfectly engaged with the moments to give that filling of drama (even if some people consider it "false drama"). I got that cold travelling through my spine many times during the battles.
yesdachi
11-24-2006, 14:59
When I get home I am watching the Hobbit cartoon.
Blodrast
11-24-2006, 19:53
I really don't think so. LOTR is filled with dramatic events sure, bet the people are always black and white. Either evil or good. The ring supposedly changes this but it never moves anyone into "grey" it just makes good people evil. Real people aren't like that. That's why none of the characters are particularly likable or interesting.
You're kidding, right ?
So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.
How about Boromir ? Is he also good or bad ? No, he changes from good, to bad, and then he changes back to good in the end.
How about Faramir ? First he wants the ring - but not for himself, but to prove himself in the eyes of his father, but later on he gives that up.
Aragorn is haunted by his fears and doubts, and they are outlined in the movie more than I would have expected (remember exchanges between him, and Arwen, and Elrond).
No character development, right...
Adrian II
11-24-2006, 20:36
You're kidding, right ?
So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.
How about Boromir ? Is he also good or bad ? No, he changes from good, to bad, and then he changes back to good in the end.
How about Faramir ? First he wants the ring - but not for himself, but to prove himself in the eyes of his father, but later on he gives that up.
Aragorn is haunted by his fears and doubts, and they are outlined in the movie more than I would have expected (remember exchanges between him, and Arwen, and Elrond).
No character development, right...It depends on what you call 'character'.
As one critic has famously stated, Tolkien's literary creations exist only 'from the neck up'. This alone makes that his books are essentially children's stories.
Another aspect is that even though his characters may change from good to evil and back, the nature of good and evil itself is not disputed or explored. Good and evil in LOTR are solid categories, as solid as the characters' asexuality.
Furthermore, good and evil are externalised in separate things, creatures, regions and natural phenomena (mountains etcetera). Hence they are never seen as two sides of one and the same coin, so to speak. In LOTR-speak, even a coin would either be a Smuggblub ('good coin') or a Crengdwar ('bad coin').
I case you wonder what language this is - it is Flubdubgrogglesnot, a fake language I just invented in order to suggest meaning where there is none. Such is the way of the Hobbitses, I'm afraid.
Blodrast
11-24-2006, 21:39
It depends on what you call 'character'.
As one critic has famously stated, Tolkien's literary creations exist only 'from the neck up'. This alone makes that his books are essentially children's stories.
The characters - some of them at least - seem developed enough for me - more so in the books, less so in the movie (understandably, since the movie's focus, or point, was not a 3-hour long introspection in the psychological processes of hobbits).
So, all books that have characters which are insufficiently developed, are children's books ?!:inquisitive:
Another aspect is that even though his characters may change from good to evil and back, the nature of good and evil itself is not disputed or explored. Good and evil in LOTR are solid categories, as solid as the characters' asexuality.
I beg to differ in this case, my argument being, again, Gollum. If that doesn't dispute and explore the nature of good and evil, the causes, the process, the oscillation, then I don't know what would suffice.
Furthermore, good and evil are externalised in separate things, creatures, regions and natural phenomena (mountains etcetera). Hence they are never seen as two sides of one and the same coin, so to speak. In LOTR-speak, even a coin would either be a Smuggblub ('good coin') or a Crengdwar ('bad coin').
I case you wonder what language this is - it is Flubdubgrogglesnot, a fake language I just invented in order to suggest meaning where there is none. Such is the way of the Hobbitses, I'm afraid.
Sure they are presented as two sides of the same coin: Gollum, Faramir, Boromir - they all have their good traits and bad traits, and they oscillate between them. It's exactly like you said: two sides of the same coin.
As for the non-alive things, which are either good or bad, I'm not sure what your point is there. Sure, there's places with a bad reputation, and "nice" places, how is that unrealistic? Seems to me that reality is exactly like that.
If I go visit a mine, or a former prison, where hundreds of people died, or were killed, or suffered, I'll bet your morning coffee cup I won't be all cheery and prancing, and I won't be getting any "good vibes" from the place.
On the other hand, if I go to a theme-park, a rollercoaster thingie, or a place famous for, say, lovers kissing on/in/under/ it, etc, sure enough I'll get "good vibes".
I'm afraid I also missed your point about the languages. I thought the creation of all the languages specific to the various races adds immensely to the realism and the immersion of Tolkien's work, and it's pretty much admired by a bunch of philologists and folks concerned with languages and such. I don't understand why that is a negative point for you, but of course we're all allowed our opinions.
doc_bean
11-24-2006, 22:05
Read the "Silmarillon". The trilogy of the Ring is more sintetic and pedagogic than anyother story of Tolkien. The Silmarillon won't be as attached to reality as you may want (i.e. still separates bad and good clearly) but the characters are, though less developed than in the trilogy, more varieded. However the story is still plagued with historical determinism, the ones that ought to fall will fall.
The Silmarillon is a horribly self indulgend book though. It's like with LOTR Tolkien tried to write the 'new' testament and then with the Silmarillon he tried to add the old. Of course, Tolkien would probably turn over in his grave if he read me compare his books to the Bible, considering his views on the subject :laugh4:
Adrian II
11-25-2006, 00:13
So, all books that have characters which are insufficiently developed, are children's books ?!:inquisitive:With insufficiently developed characters, not necessarily. But stories populated exclusively by asexual beings usually are.
I beg to differ in this case, my argument being, again, Gollum. If that doesn't dispute and explore the nature of good and evil, the causes, the process, the oscillation, then I don't know what would suffice.What I meant to say was that good and evil in LOTR are two different, clearly identifiable coins. There is never a dilemma about what constitutes good or evil in a given situation, is there? Well, I didn't get the inpression there was any when I read some of Tolkien, though maybe I have missed out on a major aspect. I see no moral ambiguity such as I see in a figure like Achilles, who is under no influence but his own and who has to ask himself whether what he wants is good or evil.
Evil is represented in LOTR as a clearly identifiable outside force, the force of the Ring which by its mere presence corrupts Gollum's originally good nature. He becomes a slave to the Ring. The essential thing is that the Ring seeks him out, not the other way around. Gollum never chose evil; evil chose him.
The idea that evil (as represented by the Ring) 'takes care of itself' and will always try to return to its origins is a truly dramatic theme that could have been beautifully explored in the Tolkien books or movies - if only evil had been restored to its proper abode, the human mind, instead of embodied in a shiny thingamy.
Blodrast
11-25-2006, 01:22
With insufficiently developed characters, not necessarily. But stories populated exclusively by asexual beings usually are.
Whoa! So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying, LOTR is childish because there's not enough emphasis on sexuality ?!
What I meant to say was that good and evil in LOTR are two different, clearly identifiable coins. There is never a dilemma about what constitutes good or evil in a given situation, is there? Well, I didn't get the inpression there was any when I read some of Tolkien, though maybe I have missed out on a major aspect. I see no moral ambiguity such as I see in a figure like Achilles, who is under no influence but his own and who has to ask himself whether what he wants is good or evil.
Evil is represented in LOTR as a clearly identifiable outside force, the force of the Ring which by its mere presence corrupts Gollum's originally good nature. He becomes a slave to the Ring. The essential thing is that the Ring seeks him out, not the other way around. Gollum never chose evil; evil chose him.
Okay, now I understand what you're saying.
But I think that the choices that Boromir and Faramir have to make are pretty much showing that: the moral ambiguity of their decisions. It's not wrong/evil in itself that Faramir/Boromir want the ring, but the way they would get it, and the price they would be paying for it, makes it wrong. Also, they were not under the influence of the Ring while struggling with those choices, because they never wore the Ring (unlike Gollum, for whom I agree with your argument).
Also, while they are portrayed rather fleetingly in the movie, several other characters have to make choices about the Ring - Gandalf, Galadriel - and, again, it is their own choice not to take it.
I guess one could argue that none of these are characters central to the plot, and there is relatively little emphasis on them.
Adrian II
11-25-2006, 01:59
Whoa! So, let me make sure I understand what you're saying, LOTR is childish because there's not enough emphasis on sexuality ?! Yous have it right, my friend. The Hobbitses mention no nooky, hear no nooky, see no nooky. They certainly don't engage in it.
LOTR is clean wholesome fun for the entire family. At least when you read the Revised Standard Version, the one approved by the Vatican. I have heard others mentioned in which Frodo and Sauron...
.. but hey, this is the Frontroom. ~:)
Seriously though, as I was Googling for 'LOTR' and 'sexuality' to see if I had made some stupid mistake or omission, I stumbled upon an essay by a PhD student by the name of Stephen Bond who says it much better than I could:
'One would have to go through Freudian contortions to find anything related to sexuality in LOTR, and in this respect it suffers in comparison to the other Ring saga (from which Tolkien borrowed the 'Ring of Power' idea). Der Ring des Nibelungen has its own severe problems, but it's clearly a work of much greater depth and maturity than Tolkien's Ring, with much more interesting things to say about sexuality. Take the scene where the teenage hero Siegfried, who has tamed bears, forged a sword, slain a dragon, killed his stepfather -- the scene where the fearless Siegfried first encounters a woman, first beholds the female form, and for the first time in his life feels fear. Wagner (or the writer of the Saga of the Volsungs) touches on something fairly profound here. Swords, dragons, magic rings, warriors, battles -- to which one might add orcs, elves, wizards and kings -- they're all kids' stuff, easy stuff. But entering the world of love and adult sexuality -- that's real white-hot terror, that's what separates the men from the boys. It's a ring of fire Tolkien's fiction is too timid to cross.
Gregoshi
11-25-2006, 02:07
I'm with Blodrast. LOTR isn't nearly as black and white as it appears.
Aside from the cases Blodrast mentions, there is also the dilemma of the elves. Through their three rings of power, they were able to maintain their ability to keep their realms in Middle Earth as "young" and vibrant places to live - but only as long as the One ring remaind lost. Once it was found, they had a terrible choice - become enslaved to Sauron should he regain the ring, or destroy it. The latter choice would destroy the power of their rings, and their lands as well, thus forcing them to leave Middle Earth and return to Valinor ("into the West").
Also, despite the Jackson-invented aid at Helms Deep in the movies, the elves (good guys) refused to aid Rohan and Gondor (the other good guys), save for the Fellowship. And the aid for the Fellowship was reluctantly given at first only through the respect the elves had for Gandalf.
The ents were yet another shade of Good. They had their own definition of "good" which was maintaining the forests. They refused to help neither Good nor Evil, though they tended to like Evil a lot less. It was only the destructive actions of Saruman the forced them into action.
The One Ring itself was a catalyst that played on the human mind. Through temptation of power, it could ruin a man, elf or wizard of the purest good. Evil itself slumbers in the heart of all good men. It is the good man who is able to maintain dominance over his evil in normal circumstances. The Ring tips the balance though. The Theoden/Grima relationship also demonstrates how a good man can be twisted to evil.
As for doc's remark about The Silmarillion rewriting the Bible, Tolkien was merely writing a fiction mythology for England. Every "real" mythology has a creation myth, therefore, so does his. I don't see what is so terrible about that.
It's like with LOTR Tolkien tried to write the 'new' testament and then with the Silmarillon he tried to add the old. Of course, Tolkien would probably turn over in his grave if he read me compare his books to the Bible, considering his views on the subject :laugh4:
He'd also be turning in his grave if he saw you claiming that he 'added' the Silmarillion, as he'd started work on that in the trenches of the Great War, 1917, and never really finished it. The LotR was, in a sense, the later work.
Now, I get the point about the story not being character-driven and all that, but to be honest, I don't care too much for all the fancy psychological subtleties that are apparently so much better (and sexuality is really unnecessary in such stories, as far as I'm concerned). I like the mythical, heroic characters, and the really evil ones - and by the way, for a really nicely ambiguous character, look at Saruman: he could have been one of the greatest 'good guys', and he's offered a chance of redemption several times, and each time he's compelled to reject it, but not without inner struggle.
Faramir's temptation in the films goes completely against his character in the book, and I'm more a fan of the determined, strong-willed book-Aragorn than the self-doubting film-version. So you could say that these complaints simply don't matter much to me (and so much the better for my enjoyment).
Still, Tolkien's best-developed character, and my personal favourite, is not even in the LotR. Take up the Silmarillion, or better yet Unfinished Tales, and look for the tale of the Children of Hurin (I think it's being released in a separate book next year). Turin Turambar has all the ambiguity you want - a great hero with some very dark sides to his character, and he's ultimately driven to his destruction. Doom still had something to do with that of course, but still.
A disclaimer: this post may not be as coherent as I should like, and I'm not addressing a few things, I think, but it's past 2am and I should actually be in bed.
Edit: Nevertheless, though:
the other Ring saga (from which Tolkien borrowed the 'Ring of Power' idea)
Tolkien's response to that was, more or less: "Both rings are round, and that's as far as the comparison goes."
Also, good points made by Gregoshi that I wish I'd made myself. The Elves couldn't help Rohan or Gondor though, as they were themselves at war with Sauron, and assaulted several times.
Adrian II
11-25-2006, 02:17
Still, Tolkien's best-developed character, and my personal favourite, is not even in the LotR. Take up the Silmarillion, or better yet Unfinished Tales, and look for the tale of the Children of Hurin (I think it's being released in a separate book next year). Turin Turambar has all the ambiguity you want - a great hero with some very dark sides to his character, and he's ultimately driven to his destruction. Doom still had something to do with that of course, but still.I have to hand it to you Tolkienites, you know how to give and take a punch. This thread has given me food for thought and I will look into the Unfinished Tales and see what gives.
:bow:
They were good books, and decent enough movies.
However, the books were alot better than the movies, and what the HELL did they do to Frodo?
Adrian II
11-25-2006, 02:27
Which reminds me that Tolkien used to read chapters of his work to friends and one night one of them, who wasn't much impressed with it anyway, awoke from his slumber and groaned 'Oh God, not another procreating elf!'
Soulforged
11-25-2006, 03:51
Yous have it right, my friend. The Hobbitses mention no nooky, hear no nooky, see no nooky. They certainly don't engage in it.Oh come on, that's absurd!!! Just read how many times Sam expresses his love to Frodo and how he holds his hand from time to time.:laugh4: Or what about that scene of the monologue of Pippin about the different sizes of the "fruits" in Brandigamo's farm?:sweatdrop:
Gregoshi
11-25-2006, 04:42
Tolkien is one of those authors you either find dry and boring or rich and fascinating. Fortunately for me, I find his writing fitting in the latter category. When I first started reading Tolkien, I couldn't believe it was fiction. There was so much detail and depth to the story I thought that it couldn't be made up. Everything I read before and since feels like a Hollywood movie set - it looks good from the front but there is nothing behind it. I found that with Tolkien, a simple one sentence reference in LOTR often has a whole short story length (minimum) back story. Somehow for me, that became very apparent just reading The Hobbit and LOTR. I sensed the rich history of the elves, men and Middle Earth. I love it. Maybe it is the history buff in me.
I am also taken by Tolkien's use of language. Often in my many re-readings of the books I find I'm saddened that I can't walk amongst the trees of Lothlorien or the streets of Minas Tirith. One of my favourite passages that captures what enchants me about Tolkien is the account of the fall of the elven High King Fingolfin in The Silmarillion. I've edited the passage to shorten it a bit:
Thus he (Fingolfin) came alone to Angband’s gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came...
...climbing slowly from his subterranean throne, and the rumour of his feet was like thunder underground. And he issued forth clad in black armour; and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable un-blazoned, cast a shadow over him like a storm cloud. But Fingolfin gleamed beneath it as a star; for his mail was overlaid with silver, and his blue shield was set with crystals; and he drew his sword Ringil, that glittered like ice.
Then Morgoth hurled aloft Grond, the Hammer of the Underworld, and swung it down like a bolt of thunder. But Fingolfin sprang aside, and Grond rent a mighty pit in the earth, whence smoke and fire darted. Many times Morgoth essayed to smite him, and each time Fingolfin leaped away, as a lightning shoots from under a dark cloud; and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds, and seven time’s Morgoth gave a cry of anguish, whereat the hosts of Angband fell upon their faces in dismay, and the cries echoed in the North-lands.
But at the last the King grew weary, and Morgoth bore down his shield upon him. Thrice he was crushed to his knees, and thrice arose again and bore up his broken shield and stricken helm. But the earth was all rent and pitted about him, and he stumbled and fell backward before the feet of Morgoth; and Morgoth set his left foot upon his neck, and the weight of it was like a fallen hill. Yet with his last and desperate stroke Fingolfin hewed the foot with Ringil, and the blood gushed forth black and smoking and filled the pits of Grond.
Thus died Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor, most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old. The Orcs made no boast of that duel at the gate; neither do the Elves sing of it, for their sorrow is too deep.
When I read that passage, feel the sorrow of the elves. Others, who aren't Tolkien fans, probably just roll their eyes. ~:rolleyes:
Concerning the movies, I thought Jackson did an excellent job of capturing the spirit of Middle Earth. The parts of the movies that bothered me the most were where Jackson had to simplify the story to shorten it. Often, the simplification was too Hollywood-ish in my mind (Aragorn falling off the cliff in The Two Towers - my turn to ~:rolleyes:). But on the whole he put the same depth into the movie that Tolkien did in his stories. If you ever watched the extras on the LOTR DVDs, there is so much detail in the sets and costumes that is not apparent to the casual eye - but maybe to the subconcious. Jackson & crew didn't have to do that and the movies would have still been good. But thanks to their extra efforts, there is an extra richness to the tapestry that sprawls across the screen as we watch the movies. That is a key element that sets the LOTR movies apart from every other movie of its type.
As for the no nooky comment, Sam has children at the end of the movie/books, so we know that ain't so!
Blodrast
11-25-2006, 05:58
@ AdrianII: My friend, I think you're looking for things in places they were not meant to be. For example, don't get me wrong, I'm as horny as the next male (or maybe more ~;p ), but I like to keep different things in different baskets. I will agree with you that good/bad, its analysis (to an extent), and some plausible characters are all things that definitely belong in a good story.
But nooky - my friend, for that, I frequent all those places with lots of popups :yes:
A good western is made (or unmade) by cowboys (and perhaps indians), shooting each other like crazy; a complicated plot neither adds, nor deducts from the quality of the movie.
A good thriller/mystery/crime movie is made or unmade by its plot, and the subtlety by which it is unravelled. Character building is important here, too. Comic situations/lines ? If anything, they ruin the mood of the film and the atmosphere (for most types of mystery/crime movies), so they better not even be there.
Likewise, in a "good" pr0n, I really, really couldn't care less about the plot that consists of a few lines which 2 or 3 illiterate beauties with the bust size greater than their IQ are struggling to vomit. All I care for is, erm, the action.
@ Gregoshi: Thanks for the quote :bow: , it is pretty well chosen to make your point :2thumbsup:
In the same spirit of your post, I'd like to mention that I'm (duh) also one of the lucky ones who greatly enjoy Tolkien's work.
LOTR has lots of purely descriptive passages (of nature, things, landscapes, interiors, decorations, what have you). Purely descriptive, and that add nothing to the actual plot - but the richness of detail contributes immensely to the immersion and the feeling you're "there", in the story.
Well, let me tell you something, although I love reading in general, I usually skip descriptions as soon as I spot them. I loathe them. Tolkien is the only author (with Maugham, on occasion) who has managed to keep me reading them all the way through - and enjoy them, nothing less!
One last thing: I thought the attention to detail as far as the construction of languages, as well as all other things, was simply overwhelming, and helped immensely to get the reader immersed in his world.
AdrianII, we half agree: ~:) It is a story (that's the part we agree on), but it's not just a kids story :2thumbsup:
And thank you all for such a nice, civilized and fruitful discussion on this :bow:
doc_bean
11-25-2006, 11:55
if only evil had been restored to its proper abode, the human mind, instead of embodied in a shiny thingamy.
That was pretty much what the ending was about...
While Good and Evil are not relative or questionable in LOTR, it does put a large emphasis on corruption. The ability to do evil exists in us all. I still stand by my point that it's vie'w on morality is very close to the bible, where people are essentially good, but can be corrupted by the forces of evil.
It is perhaps rather simplistic, but I think you're being to harsh on it, after all that view on marolity has existed for countless millenia. Homerus perhaps explores relative morailty a little more, and that might make him seem more 'advanced' since it's closer to our current viewpoint on morality, but that doesn't necessarily make it superior, objectively speaking.
Soulforged
11-25-2006, 16:31
While Good and Evil are not relative or questionable in LOTR, it does put a large emphasis on corruption. The ability to do evil exists in us all. I still stand by my point that it's vie'w on morality is very close to the bible, where people are essentially good, but can be corrupted by the forces of evil.
That's incorrect. The people on the Bible are more often real people of real times, and do commit evil by their own means. Saying that some force "corrupts" them, IS NOT the same as saying that the "ability to do evil exists in us all". The devil is just a part of psique as god, but are moral imperatives inside you. In the Tolkien world everything that corrupts is outside you. Even taking Turin Turambar in the Silmarillon, he actually is predestined to be corrupted at some point and die a tragic death, Morgoth knows it. It's more like in the jewish tradition. Everything is caused by the Silmarils. If you put the chain of events since the creation of the Silmarils in logical order you'll notice that everything that follows their creation is related causally. That's a very simplistic way to explain Evil. Love, hate, good, evil, etc. are all predetermined. That makes the story of Tolkien twodimensional. It still doesn't bore me because I like epic narration but I understand very well why other people might not like it. The Lord of the Rings attemps to add a little comedy with the hobbits, but I don't like it, so I never liked the books, I only read them to understand the movies better.
So, Gollum is either black or white, either evil or good, right ? Remember how he changes soooo many times during the movie? Remember the inner struggle, with the clash between the "nice Smeagol" and "bad Gollum" ? How about the scene where he decides to kill Frodo and Sam, that's like 5 minutes or more in the movie, a scene that has absolutely no other purpose than to show you the duality of the character.I believe you're mistaken. Gollum is only black, manipulative, treacherous creature. Smeagol on the other side is white. But they're two different persons in the same body. There's no duality here: Gollum is Gollum, and will forever be Gollum, a creation of the One Ring. Smeagol is Smeagol and will forever be Smeagol. They are not two faces of the same coin, they're two separate coins that don't coexist in the same space at the same time.
I believe you're mistaken. Gollum is only black, manipulative, treacherous creature. Smeagol on the other side is white. But they're two different persons in the same body. There's no duality here: Gollum is Gollum, and will forever be Gollum, a creation of the One Ring. Smeagol is Smeagol and will forever be Smeagol. They are not two faces of the same coin, they're two separate coins that don't coexist in the same space at the same time.
I would rather say that this is an exaggeration from the film, and that in the book Gollum and Sméagol are less distinguishable - Sméagol has his nasty sides, too.
Another point regarding evil: of course most of the time evil seems to come from the outside and corrupt otherwise decent people, but I would still like to point out a few cases where it seems to be slightly otherwise. Firstly, there's the root of all evil himself, Melkor: he's originally the mightiest of the Ainur (think angels, except perhaps a bit more potent) and he turns evil because of his own pride (much like Lucifer, if I remember aright). He then starts turning lots of other people evil of course, corrupting them from outside, but then some people are very susceptible to his evil, too.
Fëanor, the mightiest elf and creator of the Noldor, was a right [bad name] before Morgoth ever started whispering in his ear. There's Eol the Dark Elf, who's quite a resentful character, turning not-so-good without any help from the Enemy. Saruman, like I mentioned, persists in his bad ways out of pride, even without being compelled any longer from without - indeed, even while he's now very fearful of the real bad guys. This is why I find the scene where he almost gives in to Gandalf so compelling: the outcome is practically predetermined, sure, but the predetermination lies within Saruman's own personality. And finally Sauron himself was not always evil: after Morgoth's defeat he was quite willing to work for the good guys. However, being afraid of punishment, he stayed behind in Middle Earth to put it to good order, and this rekindled his lust for power.
This has taken far too long for just some examples trying to show that not all is black and white in Tolkien's writings, but... that's the geek in me, I guess...
Also, on topic: New Line is evil and creates a vacuum for making PJ sad!
The Wizard
11-26-2006, 23:43
I'd like to ask all the folks who thought the LOTR movies sucked to please tell us of a great film(s) in the same genre so that we may enjoy it as they did.
Now, I thought the movies were pretty damn reasonable, but:
Try Musa [The Warrior], a flick from South Korea. Not quite as large a scale as LOTR's, but the money they spent on SFX (and hence large scale) in LOTR they spent on good actors and a decent script. Once again, don't expect a piece of art evoking true emotions, but the atmosphere of senseless carnage caused by the pride of a few men is moving, to a point.
Alternatively, try Sword in the Moon, another South Korean movie. Not as good as Musa in my book, but others might like it better.
On the books... I read the trilogy, and stopped there. It took me two years, if not three. Compare that to that time in weeks it took me to get through George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, of which Book Three is almost as large as the trilogy's 1244 pages in the Dutch translation (strangely I read this one in Dutch, something I don't often do with books) alone, and you know what attitude I have towards LOTR.
Tolkien shines in creating a world, and the historical appendices of the trilogy were probably my favorite part -- but he fails in breathing life into it, IMO. This is my main gripe with LOTR: the characters simply do not develop, and basically remain secondary to the world -- flat characters. Unacceptable to anything considering itself a story, or even literature.
The Stranger
11-27-2006, 16:32
I dont know if someone read the Silmarillion... that is quite good... its a bit biblical but its good... I never liked the hobbit or the Fellowship, i thought The Two Towers were great untill i actually read it and i felt largely dissapointed... Two Towers movie was oke... better than Harry Potter 3&4 wherein he is basicly a big whining he killed my daddy loser... which i hated... I liked Helmsdeep battle scene but that basicly was it... though i never mind watching it but i wanna see it again to make up my mind
The Silmarillion is really background and plot material, put together into a single volume by Tolkien's son. It contains the plot for which to base a good novel, but the only actual "story" in the book is the tale of Turin Turambar.
Whatever you say about Tolkien's work, it is highly imaginitive, and I feel leaves it open to the reader to actually form their own opinions and conceptions of the various characters.
At the end of the day though this is a fantasy novel, and this is often how fantasy novels tend to turn out. This is a story on a global scale, not a personal one, so going through an entire chapter of bonking hobbits, or a stressed wizard's family life, seems rather irrelevant on such a scale. This type of book is ok for some people and not for others. The characters in LOTR and the Silmarillion are not black and white (There are many supposedly good characters that show a weak and bad side. They are not all saints and sinners.) but whether you actually like these books or not often is.
Gregoshi
11-27-2006, 17:25
I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.
I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. :laugh4: Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.
I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.
I've also read Unfinished Tales and several of the later books. Unfinished Tales is very good too the second time I read it. I didn't care much for it the first time. However, in later books the stories get too fragmented and the presentation of alternate parts of the story makes for a very difficult read. I can only read that stuff in small chunks. I'm currently working on The Book of Lost Tales 1 (&2) which are rather different than the Middle Earth we know and love. You can see the foundations of the later works but it is a bit alien. I'm staring at The Lays of Beleriand, The Shaping of Middle Earth and The Lost Road and Other Writings on my book shelf. I figured myself a rather diehard Tolkien fan but these books are making me question my "diehard" status. :laugh4: Maybe some of the others aren't so bad, but the Lost Tales are very tough to get through.
I've read The Hobbit, LOTR, the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. I first read the Hobbit, probably about 20 years ago, and LOTR and the Silmarillion soon after. Unfinished Tales, I picked up a few years back. I was a hardcore Tolkien fan, reading the books through over and over, and I still think his books are brilliant classics, but I'm no longer as enthralled as I was back then, and I do find them rather "biblical" and self indulgent in places. The novelty wears off eventually I suppose.
Soulforged
11-27-2006, 20:50
I would rather say that this is an exaggeration from the film, and that in the book Gollum and Sméagol are less distinguishable - Sméagol has his nasty sides, too.I don't think so. It gives you the illusion of exageration or even hyperbole because it's vissual and easier to comprehend. The book describes two separate persons. Sméagol is not dark, and that's for sure, until...well until he sees the Ring.
Another point regarding evil: of course most of the time evil seems to come from the outside and corrupt otherwise decent people, but I would still like to point out a few cases where it seems to be slightly otherwise. Firstly, there's the root of all evil himself, Melkor: he's originally the mightiest of the Ainur (think angels, except perhaps a bit more potent) and he turns evil because of his own pride (much like Lucifer, if I remember aright). He then starts turning lots of other people evil of course, corrupting them from outside, but then some people are very susceptible to his evil, too. My point is not exactly that evil always comes from outside. What I'm saying is, regardless of where the evil comes from, evil creatures are always evil and good creatures are always good by the own nature. Or better said, creatures are predestined to be good or evil, except if there's some greater force wich interveins and changes its fate, like Melkor corrupting the elves to create the orcs, but in that last case we're talking again of a natural or divine force wich acts from outside.
There's Eol the Dark Elf, who's quite a resentful character, turning not-so-good without any help from the Enemy.This is the perfect example of evil nature in the Silmarillon.
Saruman, like I mentioned, persists in his bad ways out of pride, even without being compelled any longer from without - indeed, even while he's now very fearful of the real bad guys. This is why I find the scene where he almost gives in to Gandalf so compelling: the outcome is practically predetermined, sure, but the predetermination lies within Saruman's own personality.Saruman is corrupted forever when he uses the Palantir and Sauron catches him.
And finally Sauron himself was not always evil: after Morgoth's defeat he was quite willing to work for the good guys. However, being afraid of punishment, he stayed behind in Middle Earth to put it to good order, and this rekindled his lust for power.You're mistaken here. If he wasn't always evil it's because evil didn't exist always in Ea. Evil came after his creation and corrupted him (Melkor did it). After Morgoth's defeat he only mixed himself with the Numenor to corrupt them from inside just as Morgoth did before the fall of the Trees. The reality is that Sauron is the first and only maia corrupted, but since he falls he never returns to the light.
Another thing that makes stories very rich and is lacking in the Tolkien's litterature is the topic of "redemption", either because the "good" is not guilty or because the one who is always "bad", well will always be bad and cannot be saved or save himself. This is something than another series of fantasy, Star Wars, doesn't do, though Star Wars is still a childs story with a lot of pedagogy (moral teachings more than anything). The "Dragonlance" series if much more mature and rich.
Well, I now wish I had brought my books from home, but I'll have to do without the exact quotations and work from memory here.
Sméagol is not dark, and that's for sure, until...well until he sees the Ring.
I do believe Gandalf states in the Shadows of the Past chapter that Sméagol was indeed already a rather nasty, sneaky fellow and that the Ring merely enhanced those traits and brought out the worst in him. That would, incidentally, also be part of the reason why Bilbo kept it for so long without being harmed: as Gollum started his ownership of the Ring with murder, Bilbo started his with pity.
Saruman is corrupted forever when he uses the Palantir and Sauron catches him.
Yes, but does he not use the Palantir in the first place out of pride and a desire for mastery? I think Saruman is a great example of an essentially good being (and one of the greatest in Middle Earth at that) slowly being corrupted both from inside and outside.
You're mistaken here.
I don't think I am. I am pretty sure - and this is where I most feel the lack of my books - that Tolkien stated that after the overthrow of Morgoth (and long before his involvement with Numenor, of course), Sauron was at first probably quite sincere in his repentance, and in his concern for the ordening of Middle Earth afterward. Of course, as you said, he never returns to the light after all, as he is afraid to face the punishment for his deeds, and is pretty much left alone in Middle Earth, where his hunger for power rears its head again soon enough.
On redemption: see Boromir.
Also, redemption is offered to some of the 'bad guys', several times in fact, namely to Saruman and Grima, and they can save themselves, except Saruman decides for the both of them (but not without a trace of doubt), and Grima ultimately picks the wrong way of freeing himself.
In conclusion I would like to stress that I'm not actually disagreeing with the notion that Tolkien's characters aren't exactly the most well-developed in the history of literature - I am trying to make the case that all may not be as bad as some seem to think. Moreover, I'm not looking for loads of psychological subtleties when I read Tolkien anyway - I'm looking for that large-scale, epic, mythical quality his works possess.
yesdachi
11-27-2006, 22:14
I care less about character development and more about seeing a cave troll smash the place up! You give me a 3 hour movie of a cave troll fighting a Balrog and I’ll show you a fan boy with the fullest bladder ever! I think the character development was adequate with everyone in the 3 films, what more do you need to know to “get” the story. It would have been nice to know more about some of the characters but I didn’t need to in order to follow the story. I would watch another movie focusing on any of a dozen parts of the movies if they made them, but all that character development didn’t need to be in the books or movies and IMO any more character development would have almost been distracting.
Gregoshi
11-28-2006, 02:47
Actually, the hobbits developed the most in the story. Just about everything they did was so uncharacteristic of hobbits, yet they did what had to be done.
Regarding Saruman, I just did a little confirmative(?) research. His downfall started long before Sauron "captured" him via the palantir. Though he was senior of the wizards, he was jealous of Gandalf's status among others. Many perceived Gandalf as the stronger (though Gandalf would disagree with that assessment). Saruman was scheming to obtain the Ring for his own, but was later ensnared by Sauron. Sauron just took Saruman's growing malice and redirected it to aid him.
Last note on good being good and evil being evil, there were 5 wizards (very strong good guys) sent to oppose Sauron, yet only Gandalf stayed true. The other four all failed in some way.
Soulforged
11-28-2006, 03:18
I do believe Gandalf states in the Shadows of the Past chapter that Sméagol was indeed already a rather nasty, sneaky fellow and that the Ring merely enhanced those traits and brought out the worst in him. That would, incidentally, also be part of the reason why Bilbo kept it for so long without being harmed: as Gollum started his ownership of the Ring with murder, Bilbo started his with pity.Yes, that's what the Ring does, get the worst of everyone. Sneaky and nasty don't make up for a "bad fellow", in fact they make him more coward and obscure than any other thing.
Yes, but does he not use the Palantir in the first place out of pride and a desire for mastery? I think Saruman is a great example of an essentially good being (and one of the greatest in Middle Earth at that) slowly being corrupted both from inside and outside. Also this quote:
Regarding Saruman, I just did a little confirmative(?) research. His downfall started long before Sauron "captured" him via the palantir. Though he was senior of the wizards, he was jealous of Gandalf's status among others. Many perceived Gandalf as the stronger (though Gandalf would disagree with that assessment). Saruman was scheming to obtain the Ring for his own, but was later ensnared by Sauron. Sauron just took Saruman's growing malice and redirected it to aid him.Then if you put it like that Saruman falls because he's seduced by the Ring, but the actual moment of his fall is when he uses the Palantir.
Last note on good being good and evil being evil, there were 5wizards (very strong good guys) sent to oppose Sauron, yet only Gandalf stayed true. The other four all failed in some way.
Yet they're "corrupted" wich is an exception for the rule of predetermination.
I don't think I am. I am pretty sure - and this is where I most feel the lack of my books - that Tolkien stated that after the overthrow of Morgoth (and long before his involvement with Numenor, of course), Sauron was at first probably quite sincere in his repentance, and in his concern for the ordening of Middle Earth afterward. Of course, as you said, he never returns to the light after all, as he is afraid to face the punishment for his deeds, and is pretty much left alone in Middle Earth, where his hunger for power rears its head again soon enough.
Yes, p. 339 in my book. However read a little further and you'll discover that he's driven to do such thing only because he feels fear, wich isn't exactly honorable and morally heroic.
On redemption: see Boromir.That isn't redemption exactly. When I said that the "good" is always free of guilt I was refering exactly to that scene. He falls incidentally by the spell of the Ring. If you want to take examples of redemption you've to go to the Nirnaeth Arnodiad in the Silmarillon and the last resistence of Hurin and Huor, however that's a kind of devious redemption, they're actually redeeming humankind before the eyes of the elves, but it's the best example you'll find.
Also, redemption is offered to some of the 'bad guys', several times in fact, namely to Saruman and Grima, and they can save themselves, except Saruman decides for the both of them (but not without a trace of doubt), and Grima ultimately picks the wrong way of freeing himself.I never said that opportunities to redeem were not offered. I only said that the topic was lacking, wich means that the examples can be counted with the fingers of one of your hands. However this only confirms that the bad one will always be bad, he does not redeem himself.
In conclusion I would like to stress that I'm not actually disagreeing with the notion that Tolkien's characters aren't exactly the most well-developed in the history of literature - I am trying to make the case that all may not be as bad as some seem to think. Moreover, I'm not looking for loads of psychological subtleties when I read Tolkien anyway - I'm looking for that large-scale, epic, mythical quality his works possess.Well if you're looking for that there's better works. Tolkien did his job syntetizing nordic mithology with post christian conceptions, and a little romanticism perhaps... However people who took him as a base have made a lot of progress in the novelistic aspect of fantasy category.
Gregoshi
11-28-2006, 04:42
Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit (http://movies.ign.com/articles/747/747498p1.html)
The Wizard
11-28-2006, 14:34
I don't get how you could possibly interpret or harken to the simplistic cardboard from which Tolkien's characters are made of... they never advance past the stage of flat character, unchanging, undeveloping, not affected by the hardships of the supposedly grand struggle against ze great evil.
The irony of it all, as far as Tolkien as a writer is concerned, is that the only character I ever felt any feeling for was Sauron, as he died when the ring was destroyed... poor guy. Frodo, Aragorn, or any of those elves (*shudder*)... nope. Nothing. Well, maybe a little annoyance here and there :laugh4:
But I suppose you could like Tolkien as a writer. To each his own... until you get to A Song of Ice and Fire, that is ~D
Gregoshi
11-28-2006, 19:02
"Cardboard", eh? That conveniently explains my fondness of Tolkien and notepads. :laugh4:
A Song of Ice and Fire keeps coming up in discussions about books. I guess I'm going to have to check them out to see what all the chatter is about - I've been looking for something new to read anyway. So, when does the movie come out? ~;p
Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit (http://movies.ign.com/articles/747/747498p1.html)
Excellent. After his three LOTR films, I think Jackson could be relied upon to produce a first rate film adaption. The Hobbit is the easier work to translate to the big screen - snappier dialogue and a tighter plot. By contrast, any other director and I would judge it rather unlikely. I suspect a Jackson Hobbit Film would resemble the Fellowship film - a lighter work than the other two films, but arguably the best of the three. Moreover, Jackson is more guaranteed to bring in MacClellan and Serkis, and it's hard to imagine improving on them - not least because they are so imprinted on our minds.
I just hope Jackson does not try to "improve" on the book, but adding extra stuff. When he stuck to the source material, Jackson did a superb job but his additions were distinctly dodgy - Sauron as PowerRanger Monster, breakdancing wizards, Exorcist style possessions (Theoden & Bilbo), warg attacks (Aragon falling off the cliff), corrupting incorruptible heroes (Faramir) etc. Beefing up the women's roles was the main exception - Arwen's flight from the ring wraiths was the best scene in the trilogy, IMO.
Off-topic: who should play Bilbo? I'd vote for Toby McGuire but I guess his persona as Spiderman rules him out.
Gregoshi
11-29-2006, 04:48
Joe Pesci was the first name to pop into my head to play Bilbo, but I suspect he's too old (not to mention that Brooklyn(?) accent). Upon further reflection, Jack Black might do. The role of Bilbo will require a bit of comedic flare, so Jack might be well suited. He also had a bit of a hobbit-like build.
econ, I agree with your assessment of the Jackson "enhancements" to the story. You forgot to mention Legolas, the X-games dude-elf. Anyway, despite all that, I'd have little confidence in any other director doing as well as Jackson could.
Making The Hobbit film would be worth it just for the early scene when Gandalf and the dwarves first show up at Bilbo's place. Bilbo reaction at what is transpiring is probably the funniest thing in all of Tolkien's works.
Blodrast
11-29-2006, 06:12
*peers at the blasphemers and hisses: "They are envious, preciouss, yesss, filthy little hobbitses..."
Getting back to the original topic, this just in: Jackson Could Still Direct Hobbit (http://movies.ign.com/articles/747/747498p1.html)
Well, I suppose there is hope then. I find it amusing that Saul Zaentz is talking trash about New Line having to be sued by WETA so Jackson would recieve his due. Zaentz doesn't exactly have a stellar record in that department either. He has a history of stiffing artists. Just ask John Fogerty. On his Centerfield album no less than 3 songs are thinly veiled insults of Zaentz, particulary "Zanz Kant Danz" which was later changed to "Vanz Kant Danz" after Zaentz sued Fogerty for defamation of character. :wink:
Gregoshi
11-29-2006, 15:38
IGN.com has an article discussing possible replacements for Jackson: The Hobbit Director Roll Call (http://movies.ign.com/articles/747/747881p1.html). Some on the list make me cringe. Aside from Jackson, Ridley Scott might do okay, but Ron Howard might be the best choice. I think Ron would try to capture the spirit of the book rather than pull off some weird, "visionary" interpretation. Others on the list I can't comment on because I'm not familar with their work.
IGN.com has an article discussing possible replacements for Jackson: The Hobbit Director Roll Call (http://movies.ign.com/articles/747/747881p1.html). Some on the list make me cringe. Aside from Jackson, Ridley Scott might do okay, but Ron Howard might be the best choice. I think Ron would try to capture the spirit of the book rather than pull off some weird, "visionary" interpretation. Others on the list I can't comment on because I'm not familar with their work.
Ridley Scott, I could see for the trilogy, but not for the Hobbit, it seems too light for him. I wonder what Tim Burton would do with the Hobbit. Talk about weird visionary :thinking:
Yeah, it makes me cringe too, Gregoshi. The thought that some weird visionary interpretation by a drug-addled idiot might happen isn't one to make me happy. Look what David Lynch managed to do to Dune. (shudder)
Ridley Scott?!? He's a goddamn hack who hasn't made a decent film since the early 80s. Ridley's shooting style is now virtually unrecognizable from his brother Tony who made an entire career out of directing shallow action pictures.
This project should definitely go to a director who knows how to handle 'unorthodox' material.
Rameusb5
11-30-2006, 21:24
I'm a big fan of Tolkien for two reasons:
1. His writing style
2. The depth of his world
I have always been a fan of fantasy, but as of late I have completely stopped reading modern works because the writing styles are total immersion killers. "Dude! Like, hand me my magic +1 sword of killing stuff already!"
His works are dry, but go back and read "The Romance of King Arthur" and "Don Quixote" and you'll realize that his works are based on earlier liturature, not modern. Beowulf was a massive influence on him, and that's about as dry as you can get (and yet I love it). These works aren't about "character development." They're about telling a story that is entertaining. I don't think it's fair to judge his works based on today's standards. Tolkien wasn't alive today.
I personally think that Jackson did about as well as ANYONE could do bringing the books to film. Anyone who's seen the extended DVDs about the effort he put into the films would know that. As far as I'm concerned, they are probably going to be the best films set in the Fantasy Genre for a LOOOONG time. Ususally, fantasy films suck so much I can't even understand how anyone accepts the script. Sci-fi is almost as bad, but at least there's movies like 2001 A Space Odessy and Alien (Speaking of Ridley Scott) that provide SOME kind of quality to the mix.
Sure, there are better movies out there. But there aren't many better FANTASY movies out there. I kinda wish Tolkien were alive to find out how he would have felt about the movies. I know he was blatantly opposed to any movie adaptions of his works, and somehow suspect that he would not have cared for them. Then again, I also suspect that Jackson loved the works more than Tolkien himself did!
screwtype
12-01-2006, 07:59
Peter Jackson is a lousy director and his first two LOTR movies were such a yawn I never even bothered to see the third.
I hope someone else gets to direct the Hobbit, Jackson has done more than enough damage to Tolkien already.
The Stranger
12-01-2006, 19:00
I read The Silmarillion and love it. The first part of the book on the creation of the world was very hard to get through the first time I read it, but the rest of it is wonderous and yet very sad as it goes on.
That's exactly what i think too... the first part when Melkor rebels is rather boring and its more like the Creation than a story... but when the elves come into the story it starts to get interesting.
Gregoshi
12-02-2006, 06:12
screwtype, can you elaborate some more? You post hints that you've read the books, yet you mention the movies were boring. I guess my confusion is in how's the movie boring as compared to the books in your view?
The Stranger, I've started reading The Silmarillion again this week. I found the first part of the book much more interesting as I had every reading since the first. Maybe being familiar with the whole work helps better understand what is happening "in the beginning".
screwtype
12-02-2006, 07:57
screwtype, can you elaborate some more? You post hints that you've read the books, yet you mention the movies were boring. I guess my confusion is in how's the movie boring as compared to the books in your view?
I first read LOTR when I was twelve years old, and I got so deep into it that for weeks after I finished it, the real world seemed unreal to me. I was still living imaginatively in the world of LOTR.
I've probably read the trilogy a couple of times since and each time I've had that experience of becoming deeply absorbed in Tolkien's richly detailed fantasy world, albeit not to the same extent as the first time. The books have flaws, certainly, but I think they almost stand alone in literature in the conviction with which they conjure an alternative world. No suprise (to me at least) that they've spawned a vast genre of fantasy fiction in their wake, not to mention the D&D phenomenon and the core elements of fantasy RPG gaming.
But in answer to your question - how are the movies boring in comparison to the books - I never expected anyone to be able to create on film what Tolkien was able to create with the written word, that would be asking too much. So I was quite prepared for a much less compelling experience on film.
What I wasn't prepared for was the total lack of dramatic tension generated by the movies. I think it's clear that either Jackson has no idea how to generate tension, or else he was so overwhelmed by the technical difficulties that he had no energy left to put into the actual storytelling.
In any case, you know there's a big problem when you find yourself yawning halfway through a movie and then checking your watch every few minutes. I gave Jackson the benefit of the doubt with the first movie, since there isn't all that much action in the first volume of the books anyway, but when I found myself doing the same thing in the second film I knew he'd well and truly blown it. I had no interest in putting myself through the same experience a third time.
Gregoshi
12-02-2006, 16:46
Thank you for the explanation screwtype. You have a good point regarding the tension as compared to the books and I'll add my two cents later when I have a little more time to compose my thoughts.
Gregoshi
12-03-2006, 21:52
First off, before I get critical on Jackson's version of LotR protrayed in teh movies, I thought he did as good of a job as probably anyone could in bringing the story to film. He obviously liked and cared about the books. If you watch any of the extras on the DVDs about the making of the script, you quickly realize how much they agonized over adapting the story for the films. Their dedication to protraying the smallest detail of Middle Earth is beyond all expectations - from elven brooches the hobbits got from Galadriel to Gandalf wearing the red Elven Ring of Power Narya at the end of Return of the King.
That being said, often where Jackson felt he had to alter the story his changes were less than optimal. His changes were often silly Hollywood cliches. screwtype's mention of lacking tension being a factor in there too. Some examples:
1) Jackson altered the nature of the Ring Wraiths' pursuit of the hobbits from the Shire to Rivendell. In the books, the Wraith's were scary and creepy because they were seen but never actually confronted until Weathertop and the Ford of Rivendell. They were seen in the distance, never far way and the tension came from the feeling of being hunted. In the movies, Jackson introducted some additional chase scenes with the hobbits. They were silly and I kept wondering how we were to believe the hobbits managed to escape with them being on foot and the Wraiths on horseback. At Weathertop and Rivendell the hobbits had help to fend off the Wraiths.
2) In The Two Towers, Jackson introduced the warg/orc attack on the road to Helms Deep. Now, the book mentions in passing that wargs were attacking all over Rohan, so to introduce that into the movie I can understand. But to add the whole "fictional" bit with Aragorn falling off the cliff so everyone thinks he's dead is just cheesy and unnecessary - especially when you consider the struggling they had to do to try to trim the story down to a managable size for the movies.
Alas, I've run out of time. I may continue this later (or not ~D). Anyway, the above gives you a general idea of my thoughts on the movies.
Those are good examples, Gregoshi. I agree that Jackson was probably the person best able to pull off what he did finally achieve. He was great; but not perfect.
It seemed to me that Jackson added the warg attack in Rohan because he left out the warg attack prior to Moria. It was just a thought that came to me when I finally saw the warg attack on the way to Helm's Deep.
I wasn't pleased with Jackson leaving out whole sections of the returning to the Shire of the hobbits. He killed off Saruman; so I guess he couldn't then have Saruman as Sharky. But that whole part of the books was as important as the grand epic war. It showed how the war came to the Shire as much as the rest of Middle Earth. Instead, the hobbits returned to an unaffected and unconcerned Shire.
I also was annoyed with the time spent showing Saruman as somehow the instigator of their problems at the pass of Caradhras. Gandalf clearly states that perhaps it was instigated by Saruman, but instead points out that there are many powers and evils in the world that predate both Saruman and Sauron. In the end, it cheapened the whole segment.
The need to elevate Arwen to a major character also cheesed me off. Too much time was spent in the movie dealing with Arwen in scenes that were sheer invention. That time could have been better spent doing the return to the Shire properly or even doing Tom Bombadil.
I would have liked to see the gathering of Gondor's forces, arriving to help in the fight. The procession with the arrival of armies from the south and Prince Imrahil and the Swan Knights of Dol Amroth for example.
However, the scenes that annoyed me most of all were the ones involving Faramir and Frodo. The changes there were far too aggressive and unnecessary, to my mind. Faramir didn't decide to bring the hobbits back to his father. He certainly didn't take them to Osgiliath. Unneeded and pointless.
He nailed the Balrog though, and Gandalf's fight with it. I can forgive a lot just for giving me that visual. :wink:
Crazed Rabbit
12-04-2006, 01:00
I'm agreement with the two previous posts, and one more annoyance: having Frodo tell Sam to go home; then Sam finds the breadcrumbs and decides to go back to Frodo. What's up with that? Didn't he know he hadn't pigged out on the lambas?
Good point about Caradhras, Aenlic- in the book the mountain seemed its own entity.
CR
Gregoshi
12-04-2006, 07:11
Sorry for the quick end to my previous post. My daughter needed the computer to do a writing assignment.
Good point about Caradhras. One of the cool things about Middle Earth is that various places are almost characters in themselves. Jackson got Fangorn right, but missed Caradhras.
You are dead on about the balrog Aenlic. The balrog was perfect. I thought the ents were extremely well done too. Both of those where awful in the Raph Bakshi animated version of LotR from the 70s and I can't recall any artwork of either over the years that I can say I was fond of. But they nailed both creatures/characters in the movies. Actually, Gollum was perfect too come to think of it.
It would have been nice to have Tom Bombadil but I agree with Jackson that it isn't crucial to the telling of the story. Same goes for the Scouring of the Shire at the end, although that part has much more significance than Tom Bombadil - it not only showed how the war affected the Shire as Aenlic points out, but it also shows the change in Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. But, I guess Jackson decided he had too many ending to the movie already. :laugh4:
Just to wrap up my previous post, one of the annoyances I had watching the DVD extras about the story, was adherance by Jackson tp the Hollywood conventions that you can't do this or you can't do that in a movie. It seems to me that some of the greatest films ever made took chances and went against traditional movie making wisdom. I wish Jackson had done a little more of that when applying the story to film. I'm thinking of things like the need to insert "action" at certain parts instead of a more cerebral approach as in the books (Wraiths hunting the hobbits), the need to insert character flaws so a character can "develop" (Aragorn the Uncertain) or tweaking the story to add feel-good elements (elves at Helms Deep).
Despite some of the whining above, I really loved the movies. The shock that the movies were so well made makes the "if only" situations we are discussing stand out more.
Agreed. The things that annoy me about the movie aren't enough to overcome my enjoyment of them; unlike Lynch's version of Dune which is the only movie I've ever walked out of in the middle.
Let's hope that things work out for him to direct The Hobbit. I'd love to see Mirkwood and Beorn and Dale and the Lonely Mountain brought to life in the same way by the same hand.
Crazed Rabbit
12-04-2006, 07:57
Same goes for the Scouring of the Shire at the end, although that part has much more significance than Tom Bombadil - it not only showed how the war affected the Shire as Aenlic points out, but it also shows the change in Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. But, I guess Jackson decided he had too many ending to the movie already. :laugh4:
I think it was an important point; showing how the hobbits had changed and that the war had come to their home.
Just to wrap up my previous post, one of the annoyances I had watching the DVD extras about the story, was adherance by Jackson tp the Hollywood conventions that you can't do this or you can't do that in a movie. It seems to me that some of the greatest films ever made took chances and went against traditional movie making wisdom. I wish Jackson had done a little more of that when applying the story to film. I'm thinking of things like the need to insert "action" at certain parts instead of a more cerebral approach as in the books (Wraiths hunting the hobbits), the need to insert character flaws so a character can "develop" (Aragorn the Uncertain) or tweaking the story to add feel-good elements (elves at Helms Deep).
*Sighs* I hate it when Hollywood tries to improve on stories. There's a reason you're getting the best plots from books and not your scriptwriters!
Though, I do recall Aragorn being somewhat uncertain after Gandalf's fall into the abyss.
Despite some of the whining above, I really loved the movies. The shock that the movies were so well made makes the "if only" situations we are discussing stand out more.
Very true. There were very good, but could be just that much better if only they had...
Crazed Rabbit
screwtype
12-04-2006, 14:26
Ridley Scott?!? He's a goddamn hack who hasn't made a decent film since the early 80s. Ridley's shooting style is now virtually unrecognizable from his brother Tony who made an entire career out of directing shallow action pictures.
This project should definitely go to a director who knows how to handle 'unorthodox' material.
Well I don't know, he seems to have done pretty well to me. He directed both the original Alien and Blade Runner - both regarded as classics - then went on to direct box office hits like Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down (the latter which won two Oscars). His latest movie, Kingdom of Heaven, was not so well received but he blames that on the studio cut and has released his own cut, much as he did with Blade Runner.
I confess I haven't seen Gladiator or BHD, but that's because they were not my kind of movies. Plenty of other people seem to think they were pretty good though.
Rameusb5
12-04-2006, 15:50
I concur with most of what others have said. Where Jackson adhered to the books, he did it very well.
The deviations from the books were, for the most part, pretty lame. The only changes or additions I approved of was the Merry and Pippin banter. There wasn't quite so much in the book, and I think that his decision to give them some more lines for comic relief was acceptable.
He did the same thing with Gimli in the second movie, and I hated it. In fact, I really didn't care for the second movie at all. He took WAAAY to many liberties, added a bunch of unnecessary scenes, and then was forced to end the movie several chapters early because they "ran out of time." I was particularly annoyed that Merry/Pippen TRICKED the Ents into helping them. The entire Entmoot scene was practically done for comic relief, which absolutely ruined the idea that the Ents are an ancient and extremely powerful (and poetic) race. Only in the extended version did they include Treebeard's poetry, which is one of the best scenes in the movie.
Of the three, Fellowship seems to be the closest to the original works, and in addition, borrows heavily on artwork done by artists. I can watch that movie today and identify images that almost perfectly match artwork I've seen done. That, to me, was fantastic, and showed his dedication not only to the books, but to the artists who have contributed to the Genre through the years. The Balrog was fantastic, and my favorite scene is the moment where Galadriel is tempted by the Ring. Both scenes worked very, very well.
I've already commented on the second movie (ptuie!). The third movie did seem somewhat more faithful to the books, though the entire "paths of the dead" scene was (IMHO) lame, and made even worse in the extended version with the skull waterfall (which seemed more appropriate for King Kong, and not RotK). But the very very end of the third movie was in most ways faithful to the books, and I competely agree with Jackson's decision to drop the "Scouring of the Shire." While I understand the importance of explaining that the war had touched the shire, I've always felt that that chapter was "pinned on" the end, since they actually encounter Sauraman on their way BACK to Rivendell. So he manages to completely overthrow and ruin the shire in a matter of months, which is something they could have avoided if they'd simply thrown him in captivity as soon as they encountered him.
Besides, it wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary to the plot, and the movie was already 3 1/2 hours long at that point. I would have rather they showed them killing Sauraman in the movie cut than in the extended version, but I guess it doesn't matter now.
Well I don't know, he seems to have done pretty well to me. He directed both the original Alien and Blade Runner - both regarded as classics - then went on to direct box office hits like Thelma and Louise, Gladiator and Black Hawk Down (the latter which won two Oscars). His latest movie, Kingdom of Heaven, was not so well received but he blames that on the studio cut and has released his own cut, much as he did with Blade Runner.
I confess I haven't seen Gladiator or BHD, but that's because they were not my kind of movies. Plenty of other people seem to think they were pretty good though.
As I stated before, I'm not disputing Scott's early films. The Duellists, Alien and Blade runner are his best films, period. No coincidence that the three I mentioned also sported the most solid scripts out of all films Ridley has done.
satchef1
12-05-2006, 01:42
Either Ridley or James McTeigue would be good imo, Ridley is a bit more suited but after seeing how good a job McTeigue did on V for Vendetta i would actually prefer to see him direct the prequels
screwtype
12-06-2006, 09:23
As I stated before, I'm not disputing Scott's early films. The Duellists, Alien and Blade runner are his best films, period. No coincidence that the three I mentioned also sported the most solid scripts out of all films Ridley has done.
I get the impression some of his later films have been basically aimed at making money rather than creating art. Perhaps he needed some.
I think he did a fantastic job of creating a believeable alternative world in Blade Runner, and IMO it is just that kind of dark, sombre, threatening vision that LOTR needed. Jackson completely failed to capture that sort of atmosphere, the lighting is all wrong, much too bright and sunny, the landscape is too barren, Frodo and Sam were too young for the part, everyone looks so clean and well scrubbed, no grime or sweat, and to top it all off Jackson turned the central story of Frodo, Sam and Gollum into a high camp freak show.
In fact the more I think about the LOTR movies, the more I realize just how badly Jackson screwed things up. Tolkien deserved better than this - much better.
everyone looks so clean and well scrubbed, no grime or sweat
Obviously you did not pay any attention to Aragorn's hair throughout most of the films.
Gregoshi
12-06-2006, 16:38
You took the words out of my mouth Sardo. You could almost smell Aragorn he looked so bad.
screwtype, you'll have to be more specific about locations where you thought the lighting was wrong and where the land was too barren. To me, Helms Deep was almost too gloomy & dark to enjoy the battle fully. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any location that looked wrong to me. I think I'll be watching the movies again very soon, so I'll have a chance to refresh my memory.
Some of the little things made the movies all the more amazing to me. For example, in both of the elven realms, Rivendell and Lothlorien, did you notice the leaves falling off the trees (but nowhere else)? When was the last time you saw that in any movie? Granted, the Fellowship was in Rivendell in autumn, but they didn't get to Lothlorien until December. To me it seemed a symbolism of the waning power of the elves in Middle Earth - the autumn of their days if you will.
BTW, while we are talking about the books vs the movies, I'll give a plug to the web site of a friend of mine who has compliled a rather lengthy list of differences between the books and films and also rates the significance of the difference to the story. It has gotten some attention globally. He has gotten emails from people around the world and has been informed his differences list was mentioned on a BBC radio program. I feel honoured to have made some contribution to the lists in our discussions about the movies. Anyway, here it is and enjoy it: Gary Appenzeller's LotR Differences Page (http://gary.appenzeller.net/FotRDifferences.html)
Rameusb5
12-06-2006, 18:55
BTW, while we are talking about the books vs the movies, I'll give a plug to the web site of a friend of mine who has compliled a rather lengthy list of differences between the books and films and also rates the significance of the difference to the story. It has gotten some attention globally. He has gotten emails from people around the world and has been informed his differences list was mentioned on a BBC radio program. I feel honoured to have made some contribution to the lists in our discussions about the movies. Anyway, here it is and enjoy it: Gary Appenzeller's LotR Differences Page (http://gary.appenzeller.net/FotRDifferences.html)
Thanks for the link. That looks like a great site. I'll check it out when I get some free time...
screwtype
12-07-2006, 15:58
Obviously you did not pay any attention to Aragorn's hair throughout most of the films.
Yeah, Aragorn was the only character who looked a bit scruffy. But the hobbits, with whom the movies spend most of the time, Frodo and Sam looked like they just got out of a nice bath.
screwtype
12-07-2006, 16:19
screwtype, you'll have to be more specific about locations where you thought the lighting was wrong and where the land was too barren. To me, Helms Deep was almost too gloomy & dark to enjoy the battle fully.
Remember, I only saw the first two movies, so I'm basing all my comments on them. I didn't want to waste my money watching the third.
The first problem is that it just didn't look like an inhabited world. It looked exactly like what it was - empty NZ landscape, interesting enough from a tourist POV, but not really evocative of Middle Earth.
The second problem is that the climate and the weather didn't reflect the action. It all just looked very temperate and nice, neither too hot nor too cold. It was fine to have sunny weather at the start, but from Weathertop on the weather should have better reflected what the characters were going through. Overcast skies, threatening weather, or at other times, parched, heated landscapes - something to create the right atmosphere.
Helm's Deep I agree was a little murky in places, but the real problem of that battle for me is that it simply wasn't "epic" enough. It looked like no more than a few hundred orcs making a nuisance of themselves. It's a long time since I read the books, but I seem to recall descriptions of vast enemy hordes covering the entire landscape. The cavalry rescue at Helm's Deep also looked too small.
IMO the lack of an "epic" quality inflicts most of the action, one never really gets a sense of an entire world under threat from a vast malevolent force, rather it feels more like a little stoush between a couple of minor tribes.
Rameusb5
12-08-2006, 03:16
Screwtype, have you read the books?
The first problem is that it just didn't look like an inhabited world. It looked exactly like what it was - empty NZ landscape, interesting enough from a tourist POV, but not really evocative of Middle Earth.
Most of Middle Earth WAS empty! Or rather, most of the lands that the characters passed through were empty. Particularly in the Fellowship. But in the Two towers, Rohan had been evacuated, and the lands Frodo and Sam passed through were particularly desolate. I don't think ANY encounter between the characters in the books was left out of the movies.
The second problem is that the climate and the weather didn't reflect the action. It all just looked very temperate and nice, neither too hot nor too cold. It was fine to have sunny weather at the start, but from Weathertop on the weather should have better reflected what the characters were going through. Overcast skies, threatening weather, or at other times, parched, heated landscapes - something to create the right atmosphere.
I don't seem to remember the weather being that much of a factor in the books. They leave the shire in the spring or summer, IIRC, and by the time winter rolls around, they're in Gondor, which is much further South and I don't believe has a very harsh winter.
Helm's Deep I agree was a little murky in places, but the real problem of that battle for me is that it simply wasn't "epic" enough. It looked like no more than a few hundred orcs making a nuisance of themselves. It's a long time since I read the books, but I seem to recall descriptions of vast enemy hordes covering the entire landscape. The cavalry rescue at Helm's Deep also looked too small.
Helm's deep wasn't an "epic" battle. It was a few hundred humans against a few thousand orcs. That's it. The battles of Pelenor Fields and the Fields of Celebrant were much more massive in scope. I won't say that he captured the feeling of the Helm's deep attack perfectly (I was incredibly annoyed by the presence of the elves), but it was ok. The cavalry rescue at the end I particularly disliked, but only from an asthetic standpoint.
IMO the lack of an "epic" quality inflicts most of the action, one never really gets a sense of an entire world under threat from a vast malevolent force, rather it feels more like a little stoush between a couple of minor tribes.
I'm not sure how you're qualified to say this if you haven't seen the third movie. There were no massive conflicts in either the first two books or movies. The assault on Helm's deep was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. If you had bothered to watch the third movie, I would agree that Gondor got the shaft in terms of being represented as a massive collection of different cultures (eveyone simply wore the same armor). But on the "evil" side, I think Jackson represented the Haradrim, the Coursairs, and of course the Orcs rather well. There is only one paragraph in RotK that mentions other races being involved on the side of evil, and not much of a description of exactly what he was talking about.
The Easterlings were mentioned much later as attacking Dale, of which the movies make no mention. But as I said before, the third movie was already 3 1/2 hours long. He had to cut something.
I realize I'm not going to convince you to like the movies, but by the same token, I think Jackson got the landscape and the sense of "grandeur" pretty much bang on. It was the tacked on bullcrap scenes that he added from outside the books that fell off the mark for me.
screwtype
12-08-2006, 07:34
Screwtype, have you read the books?
Yes of course I've read the books. In fact I just said so. I first read the trilogy when I was twelve and have been a great fan ever since. Read it at least twice since then, but not for a long time. I wouldn't care about this topic at all if I hadn't read the books and known what LOTR the movie might have been!
Most of Middle Earth WAS empty! Or rather, most of the lands that the characters passed through were empty. Particularly in the Fellowship. But in the Two towers, Rohan had been evacuated, and the lands Frodo and Sam passed through were particularly desolate. I don't think ANY encounter between the characters in the books was left out of the movies.
Okay, perhaps "empty" is the wrong word. It just didn't look right somehow. Hard to put my finger on what was wrong, but it just wasn't Middle Earth-ish enough.
I'm not sure how you're qualified to say this if you haven't seen the third movie.
There's some truth in that, but I'm not going out of my way to watch it just to prove a point. ~:) I'm simply saying that the first two movies did not really convey the sense of an entire world under threat from a great evil force. It comes across more as a sort of extended camping trip with an occasional hazard to face.
on the "evil" side, I think Jackson represented the Haradrim, the Coursairs, and of course the Orcs rather well. There is only one paragraph in RotK that mentions other races being involved on the side of evil, and not much of a description of exactly what he was talking about.
I don't even remember the Haradrim or the Corsairs. But for my money, he got the orcs totally and completely wrong. In the book they are short, with slanty eyes and yellowish skin - and sharp pointy teeth as I recall. In the movie, they are more like big hairy gorillas. I really hated his depiction of orcs.
The Easterlings were mentioned much later as attacking Dale, of which the movies make no mention. But as I said before, the third movie was already 3 1/2 hours long. He had to cut something.
I don't mind him cutting stuff at all, or even altering the storyline to compress some of it. What I dislike about the movies is that they simply do not capture the spirit of the books. Not only that, but Jackson just doesn't know how to tell a story or how to create tension. The first two movies are just plain boring, and that is unforgiveable in my view.
I realize I'm not going to convince you to like the movies, but by the same token, I think Jackson got the landscape and the sense of "grandeur" pretty much bang on. It was the tacked on bullcrap scenes that he added from outside the books that fell off the mark for me.
As I say, I expect a bit of tacked on bullcrap in a Hollywood rendition. But what I do expect at the very least in a story of this type is drama and excitement. Jackson's failure to create it is the main problem for me. But there are many others besides, some of which I've already tried to point out in the thread.
Rameusb5
12-08-2006, 17:44
I agree that the orcs were... annoying. Particularly the reddish skinned Uruk-hai of the first movie. They did change the skin pigmentation (inexplicably) in the second movie, but I do think that for the most part, the orcs looked too human-like in his movies.
In RotK (which I would recommend you at least rent and watch on DVD, particularly the director's edition), he showed a lot more of the Mordor orcs, which weren't quite as human looking. In the extras feature on the DVD, they explained that they tried to get the extras playing the orcs to look hunched over and more primeval when they moved about, but it ended up looking like they were all walking around with big poopy diapers on. So this was a comprimise. To be fair, the orcs I think of from Middle Earth wouldn't be possible for a human actor to portray (just like Gollum). But I'd rather have actors in costumes than CGI most of the time. Gollum was very well pulled off, but I don't want to see yet another battle scene where most of the comabants are just CGI (hello Star Wars Prequil trillogy!).
It's obvious that you aren't going to ever like these movies and of course I'm not going to change your mind on this. There WERE things that he did that annoyed me (the witchking's mace on Pelinor fields is a perfect example of this). But overall I think the movies were sufficiently close to the books to consider the job well done. Obviously, you do not feel the same way. It's not surprising because when different people read the same book, it often leaves a completely different impression on them. Jackson's and my own impressions are simply more similar to each other than to your own impression.
Still, I am dissappointed that PJ won't be making the Hobbit. Honestly, I have severe doubts that anyone else in Hollywood has the love for Tolkien to properly do it.
screwtype
12-08-2006, 17:58
Hmmm, well I must also disagree that he did Gollum well. Now as I said it's a long time since I read the books, but my image of Gollum was always of a guy with huge black eyes (to see in the dark) and black, oily skin. Jackson's Gollum has the big eyes, but they are mostly whites which gives him a very different look. And the pink skin was totally unexpected and wrong in my opinion. But then again, as I say, it's a long time since I read the books...
Actually, Gollum looked to me more like what an orc should look like than the orcs themselves, if they'd done a bunch of Gollums and given them yellowish skin I might have bought that.
The other thing that really annoyed me about Gollum - his very name comes from the *gulping* sound he constantly makes in the books, and yet the Gollum of the movie doesn't make that sound at all, instead he hisses all the time, which really annoyed the heck out of me. How could Jackson miss an obvious detail like that? Seems to me he chose to go entirely his own way with Gollum, and I wasn't very happy with the result.
But yes, I probably will eventually get the third movie out on DVD eventually. I'll probably have to watch it in instalments though ~:) What did you think of the third movie in relation to the previous two, BTW? Better, worse, or about the same?
Rameusb5
12-08-2006, 20:53
Best: Fellowship. Most Faithful to the book. Not much "stupid" stuff added, and excellent visuals (IMHO). 9 out of 10. This ranks up with one of my favorite movies of all time.
Next: Return of the King. Relatively faithful to the books, including the standoff between Eowen and the Witchking. There were a few deviations (or rather, embellishments) upon the books that I found annoying (most notibly the paths of the dead). If the Fellowship is a 9 out of 10, then RotK is a 7.5 out of 10.
Worst: The Two Towers. I was incredibly annoyed when I watched this movie in the Theatres. Jackson really took the most liberties here. The extended version made up for this somewhat, but still, it's my least favorite (by far) of the three. To be honest, any time I try to watch this movie now, I fall asleep. If Jackson had made the same mistakes he made in this movie in the others, I would have hated them all. 4.5 out of 10 (and I'm being generous).
I will still contend that there is probably no other movie director in existance that has the same love for Tolkien as Jackson, while still having access to a big budget. Certainly there are better directors than him, but I doubt the books would have been adhered to even slightly had someone else done the movies.
...The other thing that really annoyed me about Gollum - his very name comes from the *gulping* sound he constantly makes in the books, and yet the Gollum of the movie doesn't make that sound at all, instead he hisses all the time, which really annoyed the heck out of me. How could Jackson miss an obvious detail like that? Seems to me he chose to go entirely his own way with Gollum, and I wasn't very happy with the result.
I seem to recall in the third movie he does say 'Gollum' whilst making the gulping (almost like he is about to throw up) noises, I was really pleased when I heard it as that is a big thing in the books.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.