OT: Lord of the Rings info
Johnny Ziskiend
Vorlon0952 escribió en mensaje
<19990828182353...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>I saw this reported on the Aint It Cool News website as well.. There, they
>prefaced it by saying that it wasn't clear if Tyler was playing Arwen,
Elrond's
>daughter and Aragorn's future wife, or Galadriel. More than likely she
will be
>playing Arwen.
>
>AICN reported earlier that Arwen's role in the trilogy would be expanded
and
>that she would be in all three films but that she would not become an
>additional member of the Fellowship of the Ring.
>
>Vorlon
Liv Tyler as Arwen?, Arwen´s role being expanded?, OH MY GOD
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!, This girl can´t act shit, she sucks big time, and
my impression of Arwen in the books was a an incredebly beutiful woman (Liv
Tyler is, at best, a cute girl but that´s it), Man, if this movie contains
any more shit like this is going to be as big a flop as the animated atempts
of the same book, poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
Johnny
Jason Hatter
Liv To Star As Rings Queen
Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
upcoming Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.
According to Variety, Tyler was able to clear up
scheduling conflicts with the Robert Altman film
Dr. T and the Women in order to take on the
Rings role.
Tyler now plans to spend nine months in New
Zealand on the back-to-back Rings shoot but
will take three weeks off at some point to film
Dr. T. in Texas. Jackson plans to begin
production on his $130 million epic Rings series
this fall.
Now, my question is: she's playing *who*? I'll admit it's been a
while since I last read the series, but I don't recall an Arwen, at
least not in the portion of the Third Age we see. Nor do I recall a
"Queen of the Fairies"; closest we get to that is Galadriel.
Unless Arwen was the name of Aragorn's wife-to-be...at which point
she's not going to be in the movies much. 8)
--
Jason
http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Vorlon0952
Derek
<zis...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
>
>Vorlon0952 escribió en mensaje
><19990828182353...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
> Liv Tyler as Arwen?, Arwen´s role being expanded?, OH MY GOD
>NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!, This girl can´t act shit, she sucks big time, and
>my impression of Arwen in the books was a an incredebly beutiful woman (Liv
>Tyler is, at best, a cute girl but that´s it), Man, if this movie contains
>any more shit like this is going to be as big a flop as the animated atempts
>of the same book, poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
>how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
>
>Johnny
>
I have to admit that Liv Tyler as Arwen is a bit distressing. But
considering her limited role as love interest, I dont think it will be
disruptive. And after all, how many women can you name that would
live up to your expectations for Arwen, let alone Galadriel? I think
Liv is a decent choice.
The rest of the confirmed casting is respectable, I think this will be
a very good set of films.
Gandalf: Ian McKellen
Saruman: Christopher Lee in negotiations
Bilbo: Ian Holm
Frodo: Elijah Wood
Sam Gamgee: Sean Astin
Aragorn: Stuart Townsend
Arwen: Liv Tyler
Pippin: Billy Boyd possibly
Not a shabby cast so far, by any means...
Derek
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Found this on the Sci-Fi channel web page:
>
> Liv To Star As Rings Queen
>
> Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
> Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
> upcoming Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.
> According to Variety, Tyler was able to clear up
> scheduling conflicts with the Robert Altman film
> Dr. T and the Women in order to take on the
> Rings role.
Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
assume this is gonna be crap.
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Chris Pierson
Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>On 28 Aug 1999 11:46:47 PDT, towo...@concentric.net (Jason Hatter)
>wrote:
>
>>Found this on the Sci-Fi channel web page:
>>
>> Liv To Star As Rings Queen
>>
>> Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
>> Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
>> upcoming Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.
>> According to Variety, Tyler was able to clear up
>> scheduling conflicts with the Robert Altman film
>> Dr. T and the Women in order to take on the
>> Rings role.
>
>Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
>But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
>assume this is gonna be crap.
Careful -- you could hurt yourself, jerking your knee like that.
The report originated in Variety. God knows what PR flack sent it to them.
If you know anything about Jackson and how much he respects Tolkien's
work, you know he wouldn't change the elves to "fairies."
--
Chris Pierson ** "We have studied the portrayal of Canadians in [South Park]
** closely, and we're f*cking dismayed it portrays Canadians
Author ** as foul-mouthed and offensive."
Game Designer ** -- Kevin O'Shea, Canadian Consulate of New York
Johnny Ziskiend
Sea Wasp escribió en mensaje <37CA01...@wizvax.net>...
>
>
> Jane Seymour.
> Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> /^\
> ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Nope, too old.
Brian Parker
> assume this is gonna be crap.
Good assumption but the reporter just screwed up.
She's cast as Arwen in LotR so our genius just assumed that meant
"Queen of the Fairies".
Take a look at http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com/ for the full
story and hopefully some reassurance.
Brian
Sea Wasp
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:11:40 -0400, "Johnny Ziskiend"
> <zis...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
> >>AICN reported earlier that Arwen's role in the trilogy would be expanded
Well, they just lost MY dollars.
DO
NOT
FIDDLE
WITH THE SCRIPT!
You have a perfectly good plotline, with perfectly good characters, and
what you need to do in order to fit it into three movies is CUT IT DOWN,
not start EXPANDING minor characters' roles (which will then inevitably
eat into the roles of the actual main characters).
> I have to admit that Liv Tyler as Arwen is a bit distressing. But
> considering her limited role as love interest, I dont think it will be
> disruptive. And after all, how many women can you name that would
> live up to your expectations for Arwen, let alone Galadriel?
Jane Seymour. There are a couple of other actresses who can maintain an
unearthly aura about them -- I'm drawing a blank on the names, though...
--
Larris
> You have a perfectly good plotline, with perfectly good characters, and
>what you need to do in order to fit it into three movies is CUT IT DOWN,
>not start EXPANDING minor characters' roles (which will then inevitably
>eat into the roles of the actual main characters).
But take into account that Jackson never claimed he was filming the
book. It's not the "movie version" of LotR. What he is making is _his
interpretation_ of the story. He's not "fiddling" with the script - he
wrote it. If he feels it would make a better movie to give a little
more attention to the underplayed love story of the Dúnedain, it's his
call. If he would depict the Dáin Ironfoot's duel with Azog, it's his
call. If he thinks the Sackville-Bagginses deserve more screen time,
it's his call.
I personally think he's still being true to what he sees as the
spirit, the soul of the Lord of the Rings story. That's the best
anyone can do, really, because literature and film are two _very
different media._
"The book is too short," Tolkien said. What better opportunity to
expand on it while keeping to his spirit?
--
Larris "Millions of spiritual Creatures
walk the Earth unseen,
both when we wake
and when we sleep." --John Milton
Patrick M. Berry
> Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
> But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
> assume this is gonna be crap.
Why must you assume anything? Wait and see.
Patrick M. Berry
> Liv Tyler as Arwen?, Arwen愀 role being expanded?, OH MY GOD
> NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!, This girl can愒 act shit, she sucks big time, and
> my impression of Arwen in the books was a an incredebly beutiful woman (Liv
> Tyler is, at best, a cute girl but that愀 it), Man, if this movie contains
> any more shit like this is going to be as big a flop as the animated atempts
> of the same book,
Here we go again. The movie hasn't even been made yet! How can you possibly
think you know whether it will be good or not? Wait and see.
> poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
> how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
Christopher has no say in the matter, because the movie rights don't belong
to him. "Poor Professor Tolkien" sold them.
Eyal Weinstock
Elijah Wood - Frodo
Sean Astin - Sam Gamgee
Ian McKellen - Gandalf
Ian Holm - Bilbo
Billy Boyd - Peppin
Stuart Townsend - Aragorn
Christopher Lee - Saruman
any ideas?
--
"Work? Why? I summoned your demon to do it!
...Of course I had to erase the pentagram!
What do you think I am, an idiot?"
"Don't steal. The government doesn't like
competition."
Robert Baldwin
>In article <37c89bc...@news.rio.com>,
>Robert Baldwin <rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>>On 28 Aug 1999 11:46:47 PDT, towo...@concentric.net (Jason Hatter)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Found this on the Sci-Fi channel web page:
>>>
>>> Liv To Star As Rings Queen
>>>
>>> Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
>>> Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
>>> upcoming Lord of the Rings movie trilogy.
>>> According to Variety, Tyler was able to clear up
>>> scheduling conflicts with the Robert Altman film
>>> Dr. T and the Women in order to take on the
>>> Rings role.
>>
>>Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
>>But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
>>assume this is gonna be crap.
>
>Careful -- you could hurt yourself, jerking your knee like that.
>The report originated in Variety. God knows what PR flack sent it to them.
>If you know anything about Jackson and how much he respects Tolkien's
>work, you know he wouldn't change the elves to "fairies."
Yeah, well, note the "if" and the "assume" in my post. It's a matter
of expectations before seeing it (which I will undoubtedly do). I
*hope* it will be good, but then again I *still* want my money back on
that Bakshi abomination <shudder>.
Robert Baldwin
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> You have a perfectly good plotline, with perfectly good characters, and
>>what you need to do in order to fit it into three movies is CUT IT DOWN,
>>not start EXPANDING minor characters' roles (which will then inevitably
>>eat into the roles of the actual main characters).
>
>But take into account that Jackson never claimed he was filming the
>book. It's not the "movie version" of LotR. What he is making is _his
>interpretation_ of the story. He's not "fiddling" with the script - he
>wrote it. If he feels it would make a better movie to give a little
>more attention to the underplayed love story of the Dúnedain, it's his
>call. If he would depict the Dáin Ironfoot's duel with Azog, it's his
>call. If he thinks the Sackville-Bagginses deserve more screen time,
>it's his call.
<shrug> If he has the talent to make his *own* movie, he should do
so. If he *changes* LOTR, he's either improving it, or trashing it.
And JRRT set the standard he should be judged by.
>I personally think he's still being true to what he sees as the
>spirit, the soul of the Lord of the Rings story. That's the best
>anyone can do, really, because literature and film are two _very
>different media._
If he's not up to it, then why try?
>"The book is too short," Tolkien said. What better opportunity to
>expand on it while keeping to his spirit?
"Expand"? In *how* many hours of film?
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>In article <37c89bc...@news.rio.com>, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) writes:
>
>> Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
>> But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
>> assume this is gonna be crap.
>
>Why must you assume anything? Wait and see.
>
"Must"? I suppose I could turn off my brain, though it would be more
difficult for me than for some. I base my assumptions on available
evidence. Note the "if" in my post.
And, yeah, I put the burden of proof on the film-maker to produce
other than crap. Given the mentality which prevails in Hollywood,
that's a *heavy* burden.
Mr. M.J. Lush
As I recall the one stipulation that he made was the Disney
didn't ever get hold of them..... One smart cookey that Tolkien bloke :-)
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
smurflord
"Mr. M.J. Lush" wrote:
> >> poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
> >> how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
> >
> >Christopher has no say in the matter, because the movie rights don't belong
> >to him. "Poor Professor Tolkien" sold them.
>
> As I recall the one stipulation that he made was the Disney
> didn't ever get hold of them..... One smart cookey that Tolkien bloke :-)
It's just such a shame that Disney ARE making it through their subsidiary companies.
Daniel Cooper
Eyal Weinstock
> In article <zWay3.452$24...@news01.t-net.net.ve>, "Johnny Ziskiend" <zis...@telcel.net.ve> writes:
>
> > Liv Tyler as Arwen?, Arwen愀 role being expanded?, OH MY GOD
> > NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!, This girl can愒 act shit, she sucks big time, and
> > my impression of Arwen in the books was a an incredebly beutiful woman (Liv
> > Tyler is, at best, a cute girl but that愀 it), Man, if this movie contains
> > any more shit like this is going to be as big a flop as the animated atempts
> > of the same book,
>
> Here we go again. The movie hasn't even been made yet! How can you possibly
> think you know whether it will be good or not? Wait and see.
>
> > poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
> > how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
>
> Christopher has no say in the matter, because the movie rights don't belong
> to him. "Poor Professor Tolkien" sold them.
To add to it,
Christopher's son, which's name i don't remember right now, against his own father's will,
will play one of the minor roles in the movie...
Tough luck huh?
Robert Moore
Eyal Weinstock wrote:
>
> To add to it,
> Christopher's son, which's name i don't remember right now, against his own father's will,
> will play one of the minor roles in the movie...
>
> Tough luck huh?
>
Really. After going to all that trouble of contacting the dead and asking the long-dead Professor, you'd
think he'd listen to something he had to say.
Rob Moore
Jeff K
"Stealing Beauty" and one or two other movies. And, she was a so- called "Super
model" for a while as well... so, somebody must consider her beautiful. She's
not my type, but I think she is better than cute
Johnny Ziskiend wrote:
> Vorlon0952 escribió en mensaje
> <19990828182353...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
> >I saw this reported on the Aint It Cool News website as well.. There, they
> >prefaced it by saying that it wasn't clear if Tyler was playing Arwen,
> Elrond's
> >daughter and Aragorn's future wife, or Galadriel. More than likely she
> will be
> >playing Arwen.
> >
> >AICN reported earlier that Arwen's role in the trilogy would be expanded
> and
> >that she would be in all three films but that she would not become an
> >additional member of the Fellowship of the Ring.
> >
> >Vorlon
>
> Liv Tyler as Arwen?, Arwen´s role being expanded?, OH MY GOD
> NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!, This girl can´t act shit, she sucks big time, and
> my impression of Arwen in the books was a an incredebly beutiful woman (Liv
> Tyler is, at best, a cute girl but that´s it), Man, if this movie contains
> any more shit like this is going to be as big a flop as the animated atempts
> of the same book, poor Profesor Tolkien, he most be rolling on his grave,
> how could Christopher Tolkien allow this?.
>
> Johnny
Mr. M.J. Lush
Eyal Weinstock <eyal...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>"Patrick M. Berry" wrote:
>> In article <zWay3.452$24...@news01.t-net.net.ve>, "Johnny Ziskiend" <zis...@telcel.net.ve> writes:
>> Christopher has no say in the matter, because the movie rights don't belong
>> to him. "Poor Professor Tolkien" sold them.
>Christopher's son, which's name i don't remember right now, against his own
>father's will, will play one of the minor roles in the movie...
I just can't parse that sentence... do you mean that Christopher
Tolkin's son is playing a minor role against (his fathers) C. Tolkins will
or C. Tolkin's son is playing a minor role against JRR Tolkin's (C. Tolkins
father) will (as in last will and testament)?
Sin
is ideal for the role as she is not tooo big of a star, secondly the animated ones
were good for the age they were made in and, thirdly don't start bashing a movie
before it is made, it just makes you look dumb. When it comes out don't go and see
it and get into deep intellectual thought mode. Just go and lose yourself in the
moment.
Eric Tolle
>
> What do you all think about the other confirmed characters :
Bah.
> Elijah Wood - Frodo
> Sean Astin - Sam Gamgee
> Ian McKellen - Gandalf
> Ian Holm - Bilbo
> Billy Boyd - Peppin
> Stuart Townsend - Aragorn
> Christopher Lee - Saruman
Here's a better list.
Aragorn - John Woo
Legolas - Jackie Chan
("One tough ranger. One badass elf. Ten thousand orcs!"
Gandalf - Ahhhnold Schwarzeneger "Hasta la vista Balrog!"
Saruman - Jack Nicholson
Bilbo - Danny De Vito
Sam Gangee - Paul Reubins
Now tht's a recipe for an _interesting_ movie.
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
Information does not want to be free. Information wants to be
folded, spindled, mutilated, and used to make funky children's
party hats.
Eric Tolle
> Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
> Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
Well damn. I was hoping for Kate Moss.
"Screw this Faerie Princes BS." *Ch-chack!* "I'm going to get me a
piece of Ringwraith."
Derek
Baldwin) wrote:
>On 30 Aug 1999 19:55:13 GMT, ber...@aur.alcatel.com (Patrick M. Berry)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <37c89bc...@news.rio.com>, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) writes:
>>
>>> Arwen Evenstar. Elrond's daughter.
>>> But if we have "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies" fer god's sake, I'll
>>> assume this is gonna be crap.
>>
>>Why must you assume anything? Wait and see.
>>
>
>"Must"? I suppose I could turn off my brain, though it would be more
>difficult for me than for some. I base my assumptions on available
>evidence. Note the "if" in my post.
>
>And, yeah, I put the burden of proof on the film-maker to produce
>other than crap. Given the mentality which prevails in Hollywood,
>that's a *heavy* burden.
>
Well, I would happily note that PJ is anything but "Hollywood."
Everything I have read about this movie is to my liking thus far. The
cast is tasteful and fitting. From the casting directions alone its
obvious that PJ is not "Hollywood." Can you imagine if Miramax had
any say in this project? Keanu Reeves as Aragorn? Brad Pitt as
Frodo? Gwyneth Paltrow as Galadriel? LOLOLOL! I think everyone who
is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always those,
such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be happy so long
as the script deviates a millimeter from the books. No Tom Bombadil?
Heresy! Nonsense. Take a look at the mocks on the official website,
and tell me that PJ is not capturing the feel and atmosphere of the
LOTR. I have every confidence from what I have read and seen that
this will be a faithful, and well done, movie. If something as
piddling as a PR flop calling Arwen Queen of Fairies sets you off, I
would suggest not reading anything until the movie arrives in two
years. Its a friggin movie for chrisakes, I dont understand why
people get in such an uproar. How many people got damn near homicidal
over Phantom Menace? How ridiculous. Its absolutely absurd. *I*
have the books, have read them numerous times, enjoy them immensely.
If the movie is anything less than a well done interpretation, I wont
be upset in the least, save maybe over the loss of $6. ::shrug::
Derek
Derek
wrote:
>Jason Hatter wrote:
>
>> Liv Tyler has agreed to play the role of Arwen,
>> Queen of the Fairies, in Peter Jackson's
>
>
>Well damn. I was hoping for Kate Moss.
>
>"Screw this Faerie Princes BS." *Ch-chack!* "I'm going to get me a
>piece of Ringwraith."
Kate Moss? ::shudders in revulsion:::
I like women that dont disappear when they turn profile, 2 dimensional
like....
Derek
Derek
wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:11:40 -0400, "Johnny Ziskiend"
>> <zis...@telcel.net.ve> wrote:
>
>> >>AICN reported earlier that Arwen's role in the trilogy would be expanded
>
> Well, they just lost MY dollars.
>
> DO
>
> NOT
>
> FIDDLE
>
> WITH THE SCRIPT!
>
> You have a perfectly good plotline, with perfectly good characters, and
>what you need to do in order to fit it into three movies is CUT IT DOWN,
>not start EXPANDING minor characters' roles (which will then inevitably
>eat into the roles of the actual main characters).
>
>
>> I have to admit that Liv Tyler as Arwen is a bit distressing. But
>> considering her limited role as love interest, I dont think it will be
>> disruptive. And after all, how many women can you name that would
>> live up to your expectations for Arwen, let alone Galadriel?
>
> Jane Seymour. There are a couple of other actresses who can maintain an
>unearthly aura about them -- I'm drawing a blank on the names, though...
Well, since PJ wrote the *script* I suppose its fiddle proof. If you
mean dont mess with the *book,* thats a bit much. A book is not a
screenplay. And from Peter Jackson's own mouth, he is changing only
that which is absolutely necessary for the story. Such as cutting Tom
B. As to expanding the role of Arwen, from what I have read it does
not mean having Arwen joining the Fellowship or anything as grievous
as that. More like expanding her lines in Rivendell to play the
romance between between her and Aragorn a bit more than what is in the
books. You must admit, for a screen adaptation the book romance would
be apparent to only those that read the books. How do you capture the
foreknowledge of Aragorn's longtime courtship of Arwen on film in
fleeting glances? If you didnt know beforehand, youd think the two
were just flirting, and then boom they get married at the end. A few
lines in Rivendell certainly is not a script killer.
As to Jane Seymour... huh? Ms. Seymour was quite a looker in her
younger days, and she aint bad now, but too old for the part. And you
said it yourself, there are a *couple* other actresses. I think Liv
will do just fine. If Woody Allen can be pleased with her
performances, I dont know who could be upset.
Derek
Sea Wasp
> Well, since PJ wrote the *script* I suppose its fiddle proof. If you
> mean dont mess with the *book,* thats a bit much. A book is not a
> screenplay. And from Peter Jackson's own mouth, he is changing only
> that which is absolutely necessary for the story. Such as cutting Tom
> B.
Tom Bombadil is crucial. He rescues the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wights.
And from those Barrows come their weapons -- most notably the one that
whacks the Lord of the Nazgul.
As to expanding the role of Arwen, from what I have read it does
> not mean having Arwen joining the Fellowship or anything as grievous
> as that. More like expanding her lines in Rivendell to play the
> romance between between her and Aragorn a bit more than what is in the
> books. You must admit, for a screen adaptation the book romance would
> be apparent to only those that read the books.
And it's at best only marginally relevant to the action. There are
words spoken by Aragorn that get across his feelings for her --
otherwise WE wouldn't have known anything about it in the book either.
> As to Jane Seymour... huh? Ms. Seymour was quite a looker in her
> younger days, and she aint bad now, but too old for the part. And you
> said it yourself, there are a *couple* other actresses.
For real acting, there are NEVER more than a couple actors or
actresses. Jane Seymour at 90 would be a better choice than most
so-called actresses at 21.
It's not about LOOKS, either; it's about PRESENCE. She could do
Galadriel justice. Few others could.
I think Liv
> will do just fine. If Woody Allen can be pleased with her
> performances, I dont know who could be upset.
Given that I don't like Woody Allen or most of his films, he ain't much
of an authority to draw on. Some of his early work was nice, but nothing
in the past 15 - 20 years.
Eyal Weinstock
> Tolkin's son is playing a minor role against (his fathers) C. Tolkins will
> or C. Tolkin's son is playing a minor role against JRR Tolkin's (C. Tolkins
> father) will (as in last will and testament)?
Sorry, i was tired.. :)
I meant the first option. C.T's son, against C.T's will, is playing a minor role in the trilogy.
Terry Austin
Derek wrote in message <37cdb62a...@news.symet.net>...
>
>Well, I would happily note that PJ is anything but "Hollywood."
>Everything I have read about this movie is to my liking thus far. The
>cast is tasteful and fitting. From the casting directions alone its
>obvious that PJ is not "Hollywood." Can you imagine if Miramax had
>any say in this project? Keanu Reeves as Aragorn? Brad Pitt as
>Frodo? Gwyneth Paltrow as Galadriel? LOLOLOL!
Laugh while you can, monkey boy. Ms. Paltrow is on every
list of candidates for Galadriel I've seen, including the ones
that have direct person access to Jackson. And the primary
reason she isn't always at the top of those lists has to do
with whether or not she can fit in into her schedule.
<Shudder>
Terry Austin
>I think everyone who
>is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always those,
>such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be happy so long
>as the script deviates a millimeter from the books. No Tom Bombadil?
>Heresy! Nonsense.
Jackson say Tom B won't be in the theater release, but will
be in the DVD release. Probably.
>Take a look at the mocks on the official website,
>and tell me that PJ is not capturing the feel and atmosphere of the
>LOTR. I have every confidence from what I have read and seen that
>this will be a faithful, and well done, movie. If something as
>piddling as a PR flop calling Arwen Queen of Fairies sets you off, I
>would suggest not reading anything until the movie arrives in two
>years. Its a friggin movie for chrisakes, I dont understand why
>people get in such an uproar. How many people got damn near homicidal
>over Phantom Menace? How ridiculous. Its absolutely absurd. *I*
>have the books, have read them numerous times, enjoy them immensely.
>If the movie is anything less than a well done interpretation, I wont
>be upset in the least, save maybe over the loss of $6. ::shrug::
>
No arguments there. And so far, by all accounts other than
the possibly casting of Glaldriel, Jackson has done an
excellent job.
Terry Austin
Eric Tolle
> >Well damn. I was hoping for Kate Moss.
> >
> >"Screw this Faerie Princes BS." *Ch-chack!* "I'm going to get me a
> >piece of Ringwraith."
>
> Kate Moss? ::shudders in revulsion:::
I could say I agree, but then where would the thread go? ;")
> I like women that dont disappear when they turn profile, 2 dimensional
> like....
Really? Okaaaaay...
"Arwen will be played by Rosanne Barr."
Happy now?
Robert Moore
Terry Austin wrote:
> Derek wrote in message <37cdb62a...@news.symet.net>...
>
> Laugh while you can, monkey boy. Ms. Paltrow is on every
> list of candidates for Galadriel I've seen, including the ones
> that have direct person access to Jackson. And the primary
> reason she isn't always at the top of those lists has to do
> with whether or not she can fit in into her schedule.
>
> <Shudder>
I could see Gwyneth as Galadriel. She's certainly a capable actress, at
least as capable as any other actress near her age. The most interesting
option/rumor I've heard for Galadriel is for it to be Uma Thurman, with
Celeborn to be played by Ethan Hawk (her real-life husband). I think they
both are perfectly good actors.
I'll throw my hat in with those who feel that Jackson is hitting 95% of the
right notes in his production. The pictures at the official site
(lordoftherings.net) look spectacular, and the bits of script that people
have read seem to hit the correct dramatic tone.
I would love to see Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he's not absolutely
necessary. I don't know how they'll work the weapons in (Bilbo gave Frodo
Sting, didn't he?). I'm certainly looking forward to it.
ROb Moore
Derek
wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> Well, since PJ wrote the *script* I suppose its fiddle proof. If you
>> mean dont mess with the *book,* thats a bit much. A book is not a
>> screenplay. And from Peter Jackson's own mouth, he is changing only
>> that which is absolutely necessary for the story. Such as cutting Tom
>> B.
>
> Tom Bombadil is crucial. He rescues the Hobbits from the Barrow-Wights.
>And from those Barrows come their weapons -- most notably the one that
>whacks the Lord of the Nazgul.
And as he has stated in question and answers, just because they are
cut from the film, doesnt mean they didnt happen. The Barrow Wight
and Tom B interlude is not crucial to the central storyline *about the
Ring* which is what is being emphasized in these movies. The Hobbits
will still have their weapons from the Barrow Mounds. And Merry will
still cleave the LotN with his magical blade.
>
> As to expanding the role of Arwen, from what I have read it does
>> not mean having Arwen joining the Fellowship or anything as grievous
>> as that. More like expanding her lines in Rivendell to play the
>> romance between between her and Aragorn a bit more than what is in the
>> books. You must admit, for a screen adaptation the book romance would
>> be apparent to only those that read the books.
>
> And it's at best only marginally relevant to the action. There are
>words spoken by Aragorn that get across his feelings for her --
>otherwise WE wouldn't have known anything about it in the book either.
We have the benefit of exposition and appendices in the back of RotK.
Movies dont have appendices.
>
>> As to Jane Seymour... huh? Ms. Seymour was quite a looker in her
>> younger days, and she aint bad now, but too old for the part. And you
>> said it yourself, there are a *couple* other actresses.
>
> For real acting, there are NEVER more than a couple actors or
>actresses. Jane Seymour at 90 would be a better choice than most
>so-called actresses at 21.
>
> It's not about LOOKS, either; it's about PRESENCE. She could do
>Galadriel justice. Few others could.
I will agree that Jane Seymour could do a very good Galadriel. That
we are in agreement. But what actress of the proper age is of that
calibre to pull off *Arwen?* Liv will do just fine. Far better than
an Uma Thurman would, dont you agree?
>
> I think Liv
>> will do just fine. If Woody Allen can be pleased with her
>> performances, I dont know who could be upset.
>
> Given that I don't like Woody Allen or most of his films, he ain't much
>of an authority to draw on. Some of his early work was nice, but nothing
>in the past 15 - 20 years.
Point is Woody Allen is a notoriously fickle and demanding artist that
also has a reputation for arrogance and coldness with artists he deems
less than worthy of his personal attention. He was impressed enough
with her performance to write her a personal, hand written letter
apologizing for her cameo parts being cut out on the editing floor.
That speaks of merit whether or not you have a taste for Mr. Allen's
films.
Derek
Derek
<tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>I think everyone who
>>is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always those,
>>such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be happy so long
>>as the script deviates a millimeter from the books. No Tom Bombadil?
>>Heresy! Nonsense.
>
>Jackson say Tom B won't be in the theater release, but will
>be in the DVD release. Probably.
This is my understanding of the matter as well.
>
>>Take a look at the mocks on the official website,
>>and tell me that PJ is not capturing the feel and atmosphere of the
>>LOTR. I have every confidence from what I have read and seen that
>>this will be a faithful, and well done, movie. If something as
>>piddling as a PR flop calling Arwen Queen of Fairies sets you off, I
>>would suggest not reading anything until the movie arrives in two
>>years. Its a friggin movie for chrisakes, I dont understand why
>>people get in such an uproar. How many people got damn near homicidal
>>over Phantom Menace? How ridiculous. Its absolutely absurd. *I*
>>have the books, have read them numerous times, enjoy them immensely.
>>If the movie is anything less than a well done interpretation, I wont
>>be upset in the least, save maybe over the loss of $6. ::shrug::
>>
>No arguments there. And so far, by all accounts other than
>the possibly casting of Glaldriel, Jackson has done an
>excellent job.
>
>Terry Austin
Im glad we agree that the casting has been well done. There are many
people that disagree quite strongly.
Derek
Derek
wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> >Well damn. I was hoping for Kate Moss.
>> >
>> >"Screw this Faerie Princes BS." *Ch-chack!* "I'm going to get me a
>> >piece of Ringwraith."
>>
>> Kate Moss? ::shudders in revulsion:::
>
>I could say I agree, but then where would the thread go? ;")
>
>> I like women that dont disappear when they turn profile, 2 dimensional
>> like....
>
>Really? Okaaaaay...
>
>"Arwen will be played by Rosanne Barr."
>
>Happy now?
Well, we dont have to go from one extreme to the other....
I have never understood how Kate Moss is desirable, appearing as she
does as a skeleton only slightly warmed over. But that is my own
opinion, of course. :)
Derek
Sea Wasp
> I will agree that Jane Seymour could do a very good Galadriel. That
> we are in agreement. But what actress of the proper age is of that
> calibre to pull off *Arwen?* Liv will do just fine. Far better than
> an Uma Thurman would, dont you agree?
Uma Thurman? She's quite a decent actress when she tries, and she has a
pretty fey look to her. Actually, I'd give her quite decent marks as a
possible Arwen. Though she won't get to wear tight leather for this
one...
Sea Wasp
>
> Im glad we agree that the casting has been well done. There are many
> people that disagree quite strongly.
Well, it may be okay, since I HAVE had the same general reaction to the
casting that I had for Star Wars: "Who?"
Ford had one major movie to his credit, as far as I know, and that with
a marginal part. Fisher I don't know about. Hamill, I believe, never had
anything beforehand. The only name I knew was Guinness.
If I don't know the actors, they have a chance of carrying it off.
Jason Hatter
tau...@hyperbooks.com proclaimed <7qme4u$r...@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>I think everyone who
>>is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always
>>those, such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be
>>happy so long as the script deviates a millimeter from the books.
>> No Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Nonsense.
>
>Jackson say Tom B won't be in the theater release, but will
>be in the DVD release. Probably.
Tom B- Tom Bombadil, or Tom Baker (4th Dr of Dr Who fame)? Since
i've heard that he's been cast in the show....and that role would be
nearly perfect for him.
--
Jason
http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Mr. M.J. Lush
Robert Moore <robm...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> I don't know how they'll work the weapons in (Bilbo gave Frodo
>Sting, didn't he?). I'm certainly looking forward to it.
Oh My God!!!! There not casting Sting in the movie are they?????
;-)
Sea Wasp
>
> On 02 Sep 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Terry Austin
> tau...@hyperbooks.com proclaimed <7qme4u$r...@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>
> >I think everyone who
> >>is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always
> >>those, such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be
> >>happy so long as the script deviates a millimeter from the books.
> >> No Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Nonsense.
> >
> >Jackson say Tom B won't be in the theater release, but will
> >be in the DVD release. Probably.
>
> Tom B- Tom Bombadil, or Tom Baker (4th Dr of Dr Who fame)? Since
> i've heard that he's been cast in the show....and that role would be
> nearly perfect for him.
Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember that IIRC
he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
Baker would be great as one of the other characters, though. Sauruman
-- he's got a great voice (remember him as Prince Koura in The Golden
Voyage of Sinbad?), or Denethor, probably.
Patrick M. Berry
> In article <37CF0F39...@interaccess.com>,
> Robert Moore <robm...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> > I don't know how they'll work the weapons in (Bilbo gave Frodo
> >Sting, didn't he?). I'm certainly looking forward to it.
>
> Oh My God!!!! There not casting Sting in the movie are they?????
Yes, he's playing Sauron. Didn't you hear?
Rob Sanders
wrote:
>
> Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember that IIRC
>he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
>fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
Danny DeVito?
:-)
Rob Sanders
"You think you're funny but you're not." -- Wally to Dilbert
Larris
>>But take into account that Jackson never claimed he was filming the
>>book. It's not the "movie version" of LotR. What he is making is _his
>>interpretation_ of the story. He's not "fiddling" with the script - he
>>wrote it. If he feels it would make a better movie to give a little
>>more attention to the underplayed love story of the Dúnedain, it's his
>>call. If he would depict the Dáin Ironfoot's duel with Azog, it's his
>>call. If he thinks the Sackville-Bagginses deserve more screen time,
>>it's his call.
>
><shrug> If he has the talent to make his *own* movie, he should do
>so.
But if Jackson wants to see if he can capture the inner vision he has
always had of LotR on film, shouldn't he be allowed to do so as well?
>If he *changes* LOTR, he's either improving it, or trashing it.
If he _films_ LoTR, he changes it by definition. It's a different
medium! Jackson's role is akin to that of the many illustrators of
Tolkien's work. (Some of whom he's BTW actively cooperating with to
capture the visual "feel" of the artwork.)
>And JRRT set the standard he should be judged by.
When did JRRT ever make a movie, or even write a movie script?
Tolkien sold the movie rights. As long as Disney didn't have anything
to do with the LotR film it was fine by him.
>>I personally think he's still being true to what he sees as the
>>spirit, the soul of the Lord of the Rings story. That's the best
>>anyone can do, really, because literature and film are two _very
>>different media._
>
>If he's not up to it, then why try?
What?
If one cannot paint better than Tolkien could write, why come up with
illustrations in the first place? Is that what you mean?
>>"The book is too short," Tolkien said. What better opportunity to
>>expand on it while keeping to his spirit?
>
>"Expand"? In *how* many hours of film?
Somewhere between six and nine would be my guess.
It's feasible, just like it's possible to expand on JRRT's visual
descriptions, however exhaustive they might be, in a painting. Worth a
thousand words, and all that. Of course, a painting rarely covers
those areas outside of it, or the preceding and following events
surrounding the moment depicted. This is meant to illustrate that
conversion between different media is _never_ one-to-one. Subtracting
and expanding are inherent properties of the conversion process. The
resulting product is a different work of art altogether, and should as
such be judged by its own premises.
--
Larris "Millions of spiritual Creatures
walk the Earth unseen,
both when we wake
and when we sleep." --John Milton
Sea Wasp
>
> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 07:45:17 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember that IIRC
> >he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
> >fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
>
> Danny DeVito?
I said JOLLY, not psychotic.
Robert Moore
Sea Wasp wrote:
>
> Well, it may be okay, since I HAVE had the same general reaction to the
> casting that I had for Star Wars: "Who?"
As a person who works in television production for a living, I've heard of a LOT of the
actors (although not all of them), and my reaction has generally been, "hey, thats a pretty
good idea..." The only one I'm not sure of is Sean Astin for Sam Gamgee... I haven't seen
him in anything since goonies, but I see no particular reason to be concerned about it.
99% of people would have laughed at the thought of Ricky Schroeder being a main character
on NYPD Blue, but there he is, and doing quite well.
Rob Moore
Lao Wolf
be tough when she needs to be. (See Long Kiss Goodnight,
It's a much different character, but still with a lot of the
same elements.)
Just my 2 cents.
Lao
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sea Wasp
>
> How about Geena Davis for Galadriel?
No, no, she doesn't have the powerful personal aura for it.
Now, she'd be perfect for Eowyn.
Robert Moore
Rob Sanders wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anything with him in it, but the picture of Stuart
> Donaldson (?) makes me wonder about his casting as Aragorn. He seems
> a tad young. Someone like Liam Neeson fits my image of Aragorn much
> better, physically.
>
I've heard good things about him. Haven't seen him in anything, though. Its important to
remember that although Aragorn is quite old by human (and hobbit) standards, he is not terribly
old by Numenorean standards. Also, those with elven blood tend to age well, you might say.
Elrond is quite ancient, yet does not look old to Frodo (although the two cases don't match
exactly, with Elrond actually having an Elven parent).
Rob Moore
Robert Moore
Sea Wasp wrote:
> > How about Geena Davis for Galadriel?
>
> No, no, she doesn't have the powerful personal aura for it.
>
> Now, she'd be perfect for Eowyn.
>
She's got the bowmanship skills to play a warrior....
Rob Moore
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>Jason Hatter wrote:
>>
>> On 02 Sep 1999, in rec.games.frp.dnd, Terry Austin
>> tau...@hyperbooks.com proclaimed <7qme4u$r...@enews2.newsguy.com>:
>>
>> >I think everyone who
>> >>is sensible about this movie will be pleased. There are always
>> >>those, such as yourself by what you've posted, that will not be
>> >>happy so long as the script deviates a millimeter from the books.
>> >> No Tom Bombadil? Heresy! Nonsense.
>> >
>> >Jackson say Tom B won't be in the theater release, but will
>> >be in the DVD release. Probably.
>>
>> Tom B- Tom Bombadil, or Tom Baker (4th Dr of Dr Who fame)? Since
>> i've heard that he's been cast in the show....and that role would be
>> nearly perfect for him.
>
> Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember that IIRC
>he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
>fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
>
> Baker would be great as one of the other characters, though. Sauruman
>-- he's got a great voice (remember him as Prince Koura in The Golden
>Voyage of Sinbad?), or Denethor, probably.
Baker as Saruman? Ick. Hows'about Peter Cushing? Sinister enough,
and a good voice as well.
My voye for Aragorn, though, goes to Kenneth Branaugh. One of the few
I can imagine pulling off the "I am ARagorn, son of Arathorn,
Isildur's Heir" lines without sounding/looking absurd.
And I am completely unable to grasp why people keep going to the
"Supermodel" list for Galadriel. Their *is* a difference between
Beauty and Charisma. [Kate Moss vs. Sauron, in a battle of Wills?
Yeah, right. *That's* believable.]
--
Saint Baldwin, definer of the unholy darkspawn.
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
"Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out" [MSB].
-
Spam Satan! www.sluggy.com
Remove the spam-block to reply
Derek
wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 20:24:13 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> I will agree that Jane Seymour could do a very good Galadriel. That
>> we are in agreement. But what actress of the proper age is of that
>> calibre to pull off *Arwen?* Liv will do just fine. Far better than
>> an Uma Thurman would, dont you agree?
>
> Uma Thurman? She's quite a decent actress when she tries, and she has a
>pretty fey look to her. Actually, I'd give her quite decent marks as a
>possible Arwen. Though she won't get to wear tight leather for this
>one...
I have personally never been all that impressed with Uma Thurman or
her performances. Not a bad actress, and Im sure she would do fine,
but I certainly dont like her for any female role in the movie. She
is what I would call... handsome. ::shrug::
Derek
Rob Sanders
<robm...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>As a person who works in television production for a living, I've heard of a LOT of the
>actors (although not all of them), and my reaction has generally been, "hey, thats a pretty
>good idea..." The only one I'm not sure of is Sean Astin for Sam Gamgee... I haven't seen
>him in anything since goonies, but I see no particular reason to be concerned about it.
>99% of people would have laughed at the thought of Ricky Schroeder being a main character
>on NYPD Blue, but there he is, and doing quite well.
>
>Rob Moore
Astin has a Gamgee sort of look about him, I think. Can't speak to
his acting ability.
I haven't seen anything with him in it, but the picture of Stuart
Donaldson (?) makes me wonder about his casting as Aragorn. He seems
a tad young. Someone like Liam Neeson fits my image of Aragorn much
better, physically.
Rob Sanders
wrote:
>Rob Sanders wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 07:45:17 -0400, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember that IIRC
>> >he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
>> >fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
>>
>> Danny DeVito?
>
> I said JOLLY, not psychotic.
Hmmmmm.....Buddy Hackett? Arte Johnson? :)
Rob Sanders
wrote:
>Lao Wolf wrote:
>>
>> How about Geena Davis for Galadriel?
>
> No, no, she doesn't have the powerful personal aura for it.
>
> Now, she'd be perfect for Eowyn.
>
Excellent call, Wasp.
You're dead on with Jane Seymour having the presence for Galadriel,
she would have been perfect even as late as 5+ years ago, I think.
Hmmmmmmmm...have to ponder. I guess Uma would be OK, though.
Robert Baldwin
>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>>But take into account that Jackson never claimed he was filming the
>>>book. It's not the "movie version" of LotR. What he is making is _his
>>>interpretation_ of the story. He's not "fiddling" with the script - he
>>>wrote it. If he feels it would make a better movie to give a little
>>>more attention to the underplayed love story of the Dúnedain, it's his
>>>call. If he would depict the Dáin Ironfoot's duel with Azog, it's his
>>>call. If he thinks the Sackville-Bagginses deserve more screen time,
>>>it's his call.
>>
>><shrug> If he has the talent to make his *own* movie, he should do
>>so.
>
>But if Jackson wants to see if he can capture the inner vision he has
>always had of LotR on film, shouldn't he be allowed to do so as well?
"Allowed"? Subject to copyright issues, sure. But he sets himself up
to be compared to JRRT, and rightfully so.
>
>>If he *changes* LOTR, he's either improving it, or trashing it.
>
>If he _films_ LoTR, he changes it by definition. It's a different
>medium! Jackson's role is akin to that of the many illustrators of
>Tolkien's work. (Some of whom he's BTW actively cooperating with to
>capture the visual "feel" of the artwork.)
Yup. Hence the standard. He chose to do it.
>
>>And JRRT set the standard he should be judged by.
>
>When did JRRT ever make a movie, or even write a movie script?
>Tolkien sold the movie rights. As long as Disney didn't have anything
>to do with the LotR film it was fine by him.
Exactly. JRRT did not intend his work be a movie. If Jackson doesn't
want his worked to be held to the standard of JRRT, he should do
something else. No one *forced* him to do this.
>>If he's not up to it, then why try?
>
>What?
>
>If one cannot paint better than Tolkien could write, why come up with
>illustrations in the first place? Is that what you mean?
<snip>
Don't be stupid. The illustrations *are* compared, by those who view
them, to the nature of the original work. And if does something
imbecillic, like "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies", he desrves whatever
criticism he gets. He also deserves the credit for doing it well,
*if* that happens.
Robert Baldwin
<x12718e4...@trotter.usma.edu> wrote:
>How about Geena Davis for Galadriel? Pretty, wise, and can
>be tough when she needs to be. (See Long Kiss Goodnight,
>It's a much different character, but still with a lot of the
>same elements.)
I was just thinking she'd be a great Eowyn.
Mithras
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Baker as BOMBADIL? No, no. That jolly singing guy... remember
>that IIRC
>> >he's supposed to be pretty short and plump. Damn, there's an actor who'd
>> >fit perfectly and I can't remember his name.
>>
>> Danny DeVito?
>
> I said JOLLY, not psychotic.
Ned Beatty? He's had a few singing roles, IIRC, and he certainly
looks the part.
--Darryl Farr
CPost83357
released
Hong Ooi
Baldwin) wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 19:41:56 +1700, Lao Wolf
><x12718e4...@trotter.usma.edu> wrote:
>
>>How about Geena Davis for Galadriel? Pretty, wise, and can
>>be tough when she needs to be. (See Long Kiss Goodnight,
>>It's a much different character, but still with a lot of the
>>same elements.)
>
>I was just thinking she'd be a great Eowyn.
Naw. Paltrow as Eowyn, and either Emma Thompson or Michelle Pfeiffer as
Galadriel. You've got to have gravitas...
--
Hong Ooi | NRMA Research and Development
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | CMA/RSISE, Australian National University
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | Ph: (02) 6267-4140
Canberra, Australia |
Robert Baldwin
<hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Sep 1999 04:48:22 GMT, rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert
>Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 19:41:56 +1700, Lao Wolf
>><x12718e4...@trotter.usma.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>How about Geena Davis for Galadriel? Pretty, wise, and can
>>>be tough when she needs to be. (See Long Kiss Goodnight,
>>>It's a much different character, but still with a lot of the
>>>same elements.)
>>
>>I was just thinking she'd be a great Eowyn.
>
>Naw. Paltrow as Eowyn, and either Emma Thompson or Michelle Pfeiffer as
>Galadriel. You've got to have gravitas...
Davis showed her ability to do the sword swinging bit in Cut-throat
Island. I agree on Thompson as Galadriel, though.
Cabrini
>Tom B- Tom Bombadil, or Tom Baker (4th Dr of Dr Who fame)? Since i've heard that he's been cast in the show....and that role would be nearly perfect for him.
>Jason
I believe you've gotten your casting rumors a bit confused.
Tom Baker will be making a cameo appearance in the Dungeons
& Dragons movie, not LotR.
Colin Fisher
> Well, it may be okay,
since I
> HAVE had the same general reaction to
> the casting that I had for Star Wars:
> "Who?"
Speaking of Star Wars, what did you think of the casting for Phantom
Menace? It most certainly had more popular actors than the original
triloy did, but I thought the actors pulled it off real well IMO for
it's rather weak script.
Liam Neeson for example has played in many movies(Schindler's List, Rob
Roy, Darkman, Excalibur, and Michael Collins to name a few) but he
didn't steal the show. The same thing can be applied to Ewan
McGregor(who played in Trainspotting, Shallow Grave, Emma, and a Life
Less Ordinary). He's a sort of well known name but is still believable
as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
The key is to hire talented actors that aren't typecasted(like Leo
DiCaprio is typecasted as the "Titanic" love boy and probably wouldn't
pull off a good Anakin IMO for Episode 2 because of that.). It's real
good to see this movie isn't being filled with huge stars, but talented
ones who are known a little but don't pop out at you from the screen
where you say, "Hey, that's Leo!"(like Elijah Wood.)
> Ford had one major
movie to
> his credit, as far as I know, and that with
> a marginal part.
You're probably reffering to American Graffiti, right?
> Fisher I don't know about.
Although she's the daughter of singer Eddie Fisher, her only role before
Star Wars in a big film was Shampoo. She didn't have a huge role, but
you're right that Star Wars made her famous.
>Hamill, I believe, never had anything
> beforehand.
He had two small films before( The City in '76 and Eric in '75.) He's
probably the worst off of the three from the original trilogy as far as
movie careers go. I think his typecasting as Luke Skywalker hurt his
career in the long-term.
>The only name I knew was Guinness.
Yes, a very popular actor. My father was suprised to see Guinness in
Star Wars since he was so big(I mean, after starring in Bridge on the
River Kwai, Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, Oliver Twist, and Great
Expectations, he had a pretty solid career behind him.)
Another popular actor in the original trilogy was Peter Cushing(Grand
Moff Tarkin) who had a pretty good career behind him back in Britian.
Other than that, most of the original Star Wars was played by unknowns.
>If I don't know the actors, they have a
> chance of carrying it off.
Depends on the actors IMO. Much like Liam Neeson in the Phantom Menace.
I knew a lot about the guy before TPM and he's one of my favorite
actors. But, he pulled off a real good Qui-Gon Jinn IMO.
Colin Fisher
>Baker as Saruman? Ick. Hows'about
> Peter Cushing? Sinister enough, and a
> good voice as well.
He'd fit good, but he's dead.
DailyRich
DailyRich
"The ability to type does not make one intelligent."
Ian R Malcomson
>But if Jackson wants to see if he can capture the inner vision he has
>always had of LotR on film, shouldn't he be allowed to do so as well?
Of course. But he should *not* be allowed to re-write the plot.
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Children weep and widows wail; our education systems fail; to hide our guilt we
build more jails; and we shall build still more" - Motorhead, "March or Die"
Domicus Website, for all things Ian R Malcomson: http://www.domicus.demon.co.uk
Ian R Malcomson
>I would love to see Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he's not absolutely
>necessary.
So what's next? "Sauron only turns up a couple of times, so he's not
absolutely necessary. Bilbo? Ah, we can cut him out...."
If you're going to make a film based on a book, you should at least base
the film on the book. Tom's in the book. Therefore, he should be in
the film. Too many things have been murdered by the movie industry by
this flippant attitude to the works which they ste<hem> use as basis for
their work.
Or are we just going to end up with something like the dreaded "Inspired
by The Avengers television series"?
Ian R Malcomson
> Uma Thurman? She's quite a decent actress when she tries, and she has a
>pretty fey look to her. Actually, I'd give her quite decent marks as a
>possible Arwen. Though she won't get to wear tight leather for this
>one...
And she should definitely *not* have been in the one she did get to wear
tight leather for.
Robert Baldwin
wrote:
>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com (Robert=A0Baldwin) wrote:
>
>>Baker as Saruman? Ick. Hows'about
>> Peter Cushing? Sinister enough, and a
>> good voice as well.
>
>He'd fit good, but he's dead.
Too bad. He was a fine actor.
New thought: Rowan Atkinson as Grima Wormtongue.
Sea Wasp
>
> I always thought Kate Winslet would make a good Eowyn...
Not IMO; she projects more a "I survive" rather than "I kick ass".
That's why she worked in Titanic. Eowyn needs to project an ability to
kick the living crap out of just about anything when she needs to;
anyone who manages to survive facing down a Nazgul is bad-ass to the
extreme in guts if not capability. Geena Davis is perfect for the part.
Sea Wasp
>
> > Uma Thurman? She's quite a decent actress when she tries, and she has a
> >pretty fey look to her. Actually, I'd give her quite decent marks as a
> >possible Arwen. Though she won't get to wear tight leather for this
> >one...
>
> And she should definitely *not* have been in the one she did get to wear
> tight leather for.
Oh, I don't know, anything that gets Uma Thurman into tight leather
isn't all bad. My wife and I rather enjoyed the Avengers, actually --
she was a fan of all the old shows of that sort and thought it was
rather amusing.
Robert Moore
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
> >I would love to see Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he's not absolutely
> >necessary.
>
> So what's next? "Sauron only turns up a couple of times, so he's not
> absolutely necessary. Bilbo? Ah, we can cut him out...."
>
> If you're going to make a film based on a book, you should at least base
> the film on the book. Tom's in the book. Therefore, he should be in
> the film. Too many things have been murdered by the movie industry by
> this flippant attitude to the works which they ste<hem> use as basis for
> their work.
Would you rather wait forever for a film that includes every line of dialogue, every
historical song, and every piece of story (knowing that it would have to be 4 2
hour+ films, and that the likelihood of it happening was slim) or get a series of
films that include 98% of the books and actually gets made?
Do you really want to hear Gandalf talk bout his fight with the Balrog (as in the
book) or would you rather see it? I'd rather see it, with Gandalf giving the
play-by-play, so to speak.
NO book is ever going to be translated exactly to the screen. They are two seperate
mediums, and thats never going to change. I suggest those who hold to the books as
gospel just LET GO. Get over it. Accept that the films won't reflect the books
precisely in every detail.
Jackson is making all the right steps, IMO. He isn't cow-towwing to the
literalists, but he's not making any wholesale changes.
A point worth making: While certain parts of the book are not gonig to be shown, PJ
has said he is taking the point of view that that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Also, no characters are being combined (a common book-to-film convention)
A rundown of the changes he is making, for those interested. This is to the best of
my knowledge, and can be easily found on the 'net.
1. No Tom Bombadil, and I think no barrow wights.
2. Arwen's role is expanded, to bring the love story between her and Aragorn a
little more to the forefront. I completely missed the Arwen/Aragorn romance thing
my first time reading hte books (when I was 8 or 9), so I can see this. Arwen will
NOT be added to the fellowship.
3. No Scouring of the Shire. Sorry. I'll miss it too, but I can see how, if any
part of the books could be cut without a non-tolkien fan missing anything, this
would be it. Bombadil would be 2nd.
Remember that if everyone who bought the LoTR trilogy saw these films once, it would
lose money. Its vital to attract NEW people to the films for them to be
successful.
PJ has also said that he is considering shooting additional footage such as the
Bombadil episode and presumably the Scouring of the Shire and offering it in a
Director's Cut version on video and DVD. IF the films do well. Also, if the films
do well, there's a good chance they'll shoot The Hobbit.
Rob Moore
Colin Fisher
>co...@webtv.net (Colin Fisher) wrote:
>>rbal...@rio.STOPSPAM.com
>> (Robert=A0Baldwin) wrote:
>>>Baker as Saruman? Ick. Hows'about
>>> Peter Cushing? Sinister enough, and
>>> a good voice as well.
>>He'd fit good, but he's dead.
>Too bad. He was a fine actor.
Yes he indeed was. But don't give up all hope! Afterall, the wizards
at ILM made up a 100% CGI human-like character in Jar Jar Binks. It's
only a matter of time before they will make a human who is complete CGI
on screen. Perhaps when that happens, we can petition movie producers
to use Peter Cushing CGI for years to come :-) Peter Cushing rocks!
>New thought: Rowan Atkinson as Grima
> Wormtongue.
I'm drawing a blank on who this person is. Perhaps you can tell me a
movie he played in.
Jim Walters
: On Sun, 5 Sep 1999 14:56:44 -0500 (CDT), co...@webtv.net (Colin Fisher)
: wrote:
: New thought: Rowan Atkinson as Grima Wormtongue.
A good idea, but you would have to add two new characters called Baldric
and Percy.
--
Jim Walters jwal...@clark.net
"My race is pacifist and does not believe in war.
We kill only out of personal spite." Brain Guy - MST3K
Mark Horning
Ian R Malcomson <i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I would love to see Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he's not absolutely
>>necessary.
>
>So what's next? "Sauron only turns up a couple of times, so he's not
>absolutely necessary. Bilbo? Ah, we can cut him out...."
>
see him speak. The characters can feel his will as a malevelent force,
but he is never "on screen" so to speak.
Roumor has it that someone is being cast as Sauron in the movies though.
:-(
Mark E. Horning "You can not enslave a free man. The most
Physicist you can do is kill him."
Phoenix AZ --Robert A. Heinlein-- (Free Men)
Ian R Malcomson
>Would you rather wait forever for a film that includes every line of dialogue,
>every
>historical song, and every piece of story (knowing that it would have to be 4 2
>hour+ films, and that the likelihood of it happening was slim) or get a series
>of
>films that include 98% of the books and actually gets made?
Simply put, yes. If the books don't translate well to film without
making such changes, then so be it - bastardising a masterpiece just to
produce a piece of eye candy, IMO, detracts from the original work.
>NO book is ever going to be translated exactly to the screen. They are two
>seperate
>mediums, and thats never going to change. I suggest those who hold to the books
>as
>gospel just LET GO. Get over it. Accept that the films won't reflect the books
>precisely in every detail.
Then why bother making them? If a film is to carry the LotR name, then
it *should* take the books as gospel. Otherwise, the name, basic plot,
and characters are just being used as a selling point.
Would you like to see LotR bastardised in the name of the almighty
dollar?
Ian R Malcomson
>>New thought: Rowan Atkinson as Grima
>> Wormtongue.
>
>movie he played in.
British actor best known (at least over here) for the various Blackadder
series. He's also appeared in a Bond movie (Never Say Never Again, as
far as I can remember), the awful Mr Bean movie spin-off (not exactly my
sense of humour, that), and was part of the brilliant Not The Nine
O'Clock News team.
Hong Ooi
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Then why bother making them? If a film is to carry the LotR name, then
>it *should* take the books as gospel. Otherwise, the name, basic plot,
>and characters are just being used as a selling point.
>
>Would you like to see LotR bastardised in the name of the almighty
>dollar?
I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays, but only one made it a
point to be completely faithful to the original work. That was Kenneth
Branagh's version of _Hamlet_, and most people (viewers and critics
alike) thought that while worthy, it was also too long and tedious. What
works on stage doesn't necessarily work in a movie, and the same holds
with books.
Robert Moore
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
> Would you like to see LotR bastardised in the name of the almighty
> dollar?
The simple point is: I don't consider what Peter Jackson is doing to be
bastardization. I think that from all accounts, he's doing a great job.
Rob Moore
Matt Devney
>
> >>New thought: Rowan Atkinson as Grima
> >> Wormtongue.
> >
> >I'm drawing a blank on who this person is. Perhaps you can tell me a
> >movie he played in.
>
> British actor best known (at least over here) for the various Blackadder
> series. He's also appeared in a Bond movie (Never Say Never Again, as
> far as I can remember), the awful Mr Bean movie spin-off (not exactly my
> sense of humour, that), and was part of the brilliant Not The Nine
> O'Clock News team.
One other movie that america might know him in is Four Weddings and a
Funeral. He was a nervous priest in it IIRC.
--
Matt Devney, the guy with the naff .sig
Yes, I work for Ford. No, my opinions are not theirs.
But I respect any company that gives me a free car occasionally.
Timothy Burke
yet.
http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=4135
CPost83357 wrote in message
<19990904165024...@ngol03.aol.com>...
Ian R Malcomson
>I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
>versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays
And I can only remember two that were any good (KB's Hamlet you mention,
and Henry V by the same). At least that kitch musical adaptation of
Romeo & Juliet (West Side Story? Something like that) had the decency
to use a different name.
Jason Hatter
dorn...@bio.umass.edu proclaimed <0ec4c663.5b98fa75@usw-ex0107
-056.remarq.com>:
>I believe you've gotten your casting rumors a bit confused.
>Tom Baker will be making a cameo appearance in the Dungeons
>& Dragons movie, not LotR.
That's possible, but I would have sworn it was in connection with
LOTR. Oh well, either could be/would be interesting. 8)
--
Jason
http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.concentric.net/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Sith Lords should learn to stay away from wells.
Sea Wasp
>
> >I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
> >versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays
>
> And I can only remember two that were any good (KB's Hamlet you mention,
Really? I found Mel Gibson's _Hamlet_ stunning, myself.
Mark Horning
Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:41:08 +0100, Ian R Malcomson
><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Then why bother making them? If a film is to carry the LotR name, then
>>it *should* take the books as gospel. Otherwise, the name, basic plot,
>>and characters are just being used as a selling point.
>>
>>dollar?
>
>point to be completely faithful to the original work. That was Kenneth
>Branagh's version of _Hamlet_, and most people (viewers and critics
>alike) thought that while worthy, it was also too long and tedious. What
>works on stage doesn't necessarily work in a movie, and the same holds
>with books.
>
movie.
Mark Horning
>Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>>
>> >I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
>>
>> And I can only remember two that were any good (KB's Hamlet you mention,
>
> Really? I found Mel Gibson's _Hamlet_ stunning, myself.
>
David
nothing about the book and barely touched politics. Great fight scene
though....
Mark Horning wrote:
>
> In article <OabTN4hroHmSLJ...@4ax.com>,
> Hong Ooi <hong...@maths.anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:41:08 +0100, Ian R Malcomson
> ><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Then why bother making them? If a film is to carry the LotR name, then
> >>it *should* take the books as gospel. Otherwise, the name, basic plot,
> >>and characters are just being used as a selling point.
> >>
> >>Would you like to see LotR bastardised in the name of the almighty
> >>dollar?
> >
> >I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
> >versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays, but only one made it a
> >point to be completely faithful to the original work. That was Kenneth
> >Branagh's version of _Hamlet_, and most people (viewers and critics
> >alike) thought that while worthy, it was also too long and tedious. What
> >works on stage doesn't necessarily work in a movie, and the same holds
> >with books.
> >
> As an aside, how faithfull was Branagh's Henry V? That was one hell of a
> movie.
>
Robert Baldwin
<robm...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
>> >I would love to see Tom Bombadil in the movie, but he's not absolutely
>> >necessary.
>>
>> So what's next? "Sauron only turns up a couple of times, so he's not
>> absolutely necessary. Bilbo? Ah, we can cut him out...."
>>
>> If you're going to make a film based on a book, you should at least base
>> the film on the book. Tom's in the book. Therefore, he should be in
>> the film. Too many things have been murdered by the movie industry by
>> this flippant attitude to the works which they ste<hem> use as basis for
>> their work.
>
>Would you rather wait forever for a film that includes every line of dialogue, every
>historical song, and every piece of story (knowing that it would have to be 4 2
>hour+ films, and that the likelihood of it happening was slim) or get a series of
>films that include 98% of the books and actually gets made?
Done right beats done fast every bloody time.
>Do you really want to hear Gandalf talk bout his fight with the Balrog (as in the
>book) or would you rather see it? I'd rather see it, with Gandalf giving the
>play-by-play, so to speak.
>
>NO book is ever going to be translated exactly to the screen. They are two seperate
>mediums, and thats never going to change. I suggest those who hold to the books as
>gospel just LET GO. Get over it. Accept that the films won't reflect the books
>precisely in every detail.
The issue is not "precisely in every detail"; it's yet another
Hollywood hack chopping up LOTR to make a quick buck. If this
Jackson can't do it *right* then he should keep his grubby little paws
off it.
>Jackson is making all the right steps, IMO. He isn't cow-towwing to the
>literalists, but he's not making any wholesale changes.
No Bombadil? That *is* a wholesale change. And "Arwen, Queen of the
Fairies" is downright crap (if true).
>A point worth making: While certain parts of the book are not gonig to be shown, PJ
>has said he is taking the point of view that that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
>Also, no characters are being combined (a common book-to-film convention)
So there is *some* limit to how far he'll stoop. Wonderfull.
>A rundown of the changes he is making, for those interested. This is to the best of
>my knowledge, and can be easily found on the 'net.
>
>1. No Tom Bombadil, and I think no barrow wights.
And the reason is?
>2. Arwen's role is expanded, to bring the love story between her and Aragorn a
>little more to the forefront. I completely missed the Arwen/Aragorn romance thing
>my first time reading hte books (when I was 8 or 9), so I can see this.
Bah. It was a background point, a motivating factor. I smell
pandering to the teenie-bopper set here.
Arwen will
>NOT be added to the fellowship.
Again, *some* limit to use of the HAckmaster +12. Yippee.
>3. No Scouring of the Shire. Sorry. I'll miss it too, but I can see how, if any
>part of the books could be cut without a non-tolkien fan missing anything, this
>would be it.
Again, inexcusable. It was the concluding element to the whole damn
story.
Bombadil would be 2nd.
>
>Remember that if everyone who bought the LoTR trilogy saw these films once, it would
>lose money. Its vital to attract NEW people to the films for them to be
>successful.
And this does that *how*? By pissing off the core market first?
>PJ has also said that he is considering shooting additional footage such as the
>Bombadil episode and presumably the Scouring of the Shire and offering it in a
>Director's Cut version on video and DVD. IF the films do well. Also, if the films
>do well, there's a good chance they'll shoot The Hobbit.
So far, I see no reason to believe this is anything beyond a Hollywood
classic: grab the loot & run.
Robert Baldwin
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Would you rather wait forever for a film that includes every line of dialogue,
>>every
>>historical song, and every piece of story (knowing that it would have to be 4 2
>>hour+ films, and that the likelihood of it happening was slim) or get a series
>>of
>>films that include 98% of the books and actually gets made?
>
>Simply put, yes. If the books don't translate well to film without
>making such changes, then so be it - bastardising a masterpiece just to
>produce a piece of eye candy, IMO, detracts from the original work.
Yeah, but maybbe that's the best this guy can do.
>>NO book is ever going to be translated exactly to the screen. They are two
>>seperate
>>mediums, and thats never going to change. I suggest those who hold to the books
>>as
>>gospel just LET GO. Get over it. Accept that the films won't reflect the books
>>precisely in every detail.
>
>Then why bother making them?
<snip>
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Robert Moore
Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
> Done right beats done fast every bloody time.
>
> The issue is not "precisely in every detail"; it's yet another
> Hollywood hack chopping up LOTR to make a quick buck. If this
> Jackson can't do it *right* then he should keep his grubby little paws
> off it.
>
Let me see: Are you going to complain as bitterly about seeing the Balrog and seeing its
fight with Gandalf as you are about the expansion of Arwen's role? If not, why? Because
both are additions to the script that do not appear in the film.
Except that Peter Jackson is not from Hollywood, and is a classic "independent"
film-maker. This is the first film he's done for a Hollywood studio. None of the
changes he's making are handed down from the studio, they're done by him. If they work,
great, if not, its on his head. I don't really see how you can say Bombadil is a vital
element of the story and Arwen isn't.
No Bombadil, and the only thing we lose from the rest of the story is Gandalf saying that
Bombadil would bet bored with the ring and lose it somewhere in the forest.
No Arwen, and we have no reason for Aragorn to reject Eowyn, which leads to her joing the
army in hopes of dying, leading to the destruction of the Chief Nazgul; no banners
unfurling over hte Pelennor Fields (the single most dramamtic moment in the trilogy IMO).
>
> >Remember that if everyone who bought the LoTR trilogy saw these films once, it would
> >lose money. Its vital to attract NEW people to the films for them to be
> >successful.
>
> And this does that *how*? By pissing off the core market first?
The idea is to make a film that is a good *film*. This may well piss off a SMALL
percentage of the core market, which I'm guessing is about 10 million folks worldwide
(figuring that 20% of the readers of the 50 million copies sold are serious fans --
probably too high). I'm just as much a fan as you, and I'm not pissed off at all.
I just realize that making a movie as close to possible to a book is an excellent way to
make a bad movie. Things MUST be changed, its a simple fact. The only issue is how
much, and the motives behind it.
Rob Moore
Dave
news:37d44076...@news.rio.com...
two seperate
> >mediums, and thats never going to change. I suggest those who hold to
the books as
> >gospel just LET GO. Get over it. Accept that the films won't reflect
the books
> >precisely in every detail.
>
> Hollywood hack chopping up LOTR to make a quick buck. If this
> Jackson can't do it *right* then he should keep his grubby little paws
> off it.
Shouldn't we actually wait to see the movie before proclaiming PJ a
"Hollywood hack"?
--
-Dave
Fairbanks was to Sullivan as Parcells is to Kraft
Mark Horning
>Look at what they did to "Starship Troopers"! Except for the title
>nothing about the book and barely touched politics. Great fight scene
>though....
>
based on the back cover of the novel by Robert A. Heinlein. I just hope
Virginia managed to make some money off the liscensing rights.
Hong Ooi
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think you're taking this to extremes. For example: many, many film
>>versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays
>
>And I can only remember two that were any good (KB's Hamlet you mention,
>and Henry V by the same).
Note Branagh's Henry V was not entirely faithful to the play either.
Neither, IIRC, were any of Olivier's versions...
>At least that kitch musical adaptation of
>Romeo & Juliet (West Side Story? Something like that) had the decency
>to use a different name.
Hrm. I've heard West Side Story described as many things, but "kitsch"
isn't usually one of them.
--
Hong Ooi | "Take your Might and Magic and shove it, it sucks
hong...@maths.anu.edu.au | now, and I'll never buy another."
http://www.zip.com.au/~hong | -- D/M
Canberra, Australia |
Sea Wasp
>
> Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Done right beats done fast every bloody time.
> >
> > Hollywood hack chopping up LOTR to make a quick buck. If this
> > Jackson can't do it *right* then he should keep his grubby little paws
> > off it.
> >
>
> fight with Gandalf as you are about the expansion of Arwen's role? If not, why? Because
> both are additions to the script that do not appear in the film.
You mean in the book, and if you're going to be that literalist,
Gandalf and Bilbo don't appear in the book, either. There's no images
anywhere in the book.
The battle with the Balrog DOES appear in the book -- when Gandalf
describes it. Which is precisely the way EVERYTHING appears in the book,
in the theatre of the mind's eye. Given that the job of the filmmaker in
this case is to translate the book to the visual medium, there's NO
additional work being done by filming the Gandalf Vs. Balrog fight; it's
merely showing us what our mind's eye is supposedly showing us when we
read Gandalf's description.
Now, I'm not quite as vituperative about this as the prior posters; I
think it's quite possible to pare out bits of LotR and make a reasonably
faithful adaptation. Tom Bombadil IS a reasonable cut, but one that does
diminish the final product slightly -- because one point of Bombadil is
to show that there are a NUMBER of Powers in Middle-Earth, and that it
isn't nearly as simple as just Good Guys and Bad Guys. Some Good Guys
still aren't going to be much use in this battle.
Arwen, on the other hand, doesn't need expansion. By use of the SAME
technique that converts Gandalf's talk about the Balrog into visuals,
Aragorn's few remarks about Arwen and their relationship can be
transmuted into a few quick vignettes that show their meeting and
affection WITHOUT having to add incidents that Tolkien never wrote. I
read LotR and it was quite clear to me, as a reader, that Aragorn was
only for Arwen, and vice versa. If it was clear in writing, it can be
made clear in film, without any need for actual additions or
subtractions.
In a similar vein, Sauron DOES appear in the books, in the same way the
Balrog does: we get to hear several people (Aragorn, Denethor I think,
and Pippin IIRC, maybe a couple others) talk about their experiences
talking with the Big Red Eye himself, and on film THAT translates to
flashback time, with us seeing what the person talking saw.
IDEALLY, I would want to see it done as a mini-series with a high
budget, so that NOTHING would have to be cut. Say, six or seven hours
per book, for a total of 20 hours, or a ten-episode miniseries.
Given that we will actually only be getting at best less than half that
time (and that's at three hours per movie) and more likely less than a
third of that (at two hours per), there's obviously a lot of cutting
needed. I expect a lot LOT less time spent on mushroom farmers. I expect
the travels to be cut over with montage scenes rather than being
detailed. And so on and so forth. To be honest, I am VERY suspicious of
this project, not because I doubt Jackson's sincerity or even his
Tolkien knowledge (I am pretty certain that "Arwen, Queen of the
Fairies" is the stumble of some journalist who never read a piece of
fantasy after he was five), but because I sincerely doubt you CAN do a
decent job of adapting LotR into a mere six to seven hours. There are
things you need to spend TIME on that they won't have time for.
I really hope Jackson surprises me, but he's taken on a project of
intimidating proportions. It's not just the rabid fanbase, which makes
it a no-win scenario (even if he kept every scrap of dialogue, there's
no way his Aragorn would look like everyone's conception of Aragorn,
etc), but just the monstrous size of the original. A short story makes
an ideal foundation for one film; a SINGLE book should have three films.
So he's trying to do LotR in about a third the time he ought to have.
> No Bombadil, and the only thing we lose from the rest of the story is Gandalf saying that
> Bombadil would bet bored with the ring and lose it somewhere in the forest.
Not quite, actually. As I pointed out, Bombadil's very presence is a
large part of the background of Middle Earth.
>
> No Arwen, and we have no reason for Aragorn to reject Eowyn, which leads to her joing the
> army in hopes of dying, leading to the destruction of the Chief Nazgul; no banners
> unfurling over hte Pelennor Fields (the single most dramamtic moment in the trilogy IMO).
And no one ever suggested "no Arwen". Her part in the trilogy is
sufficient for its purpose -- to show that Aragorn has a personal
attachment. That's ALL that she is, for purposes of the trilogy's
action, and that is all we need. Less than three minutes screen time
would suffice.
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <37D42EB2...@erols.com>, David <dl...@erols.com> wrote:
> >Look at what they did to "Starship Troopers"! Except for the title
> >nothing about the book and barely touched politics. Great fight scene
> >though....
> >
> I heard a great description of that movie. "Starship Troopers" the movie
> based on the back cover of the novel by Robert A. Heinlein. I just hope
> Virginia managed to make some money off the liscensing rights.
Didn't she die some time ago?
Matthew Bond
Robert Moore wrote in message <37D329C9...@interaccess.com>...
<snip relevant material to get to the pun>
>Also, if the films
>do well, there's a good chance they'll shoot The Hobbit.
>
Excellent, we've made millions, but that meddling Frodo is asking for way to
big a cut... take him outside and shoot him.
<hee hee>
Matt
Larris
>>>>He's not "fiddling" with the script - he
>>>>wrote it. If he feels it would make a better movie to give a little
>>>>more attention to the underplayed love story of the Dúnedain, it's his
>>>>call. If he would depict the Dáin Ironfoot's duel with Azog, it's his
>>>>call. If he thinks the Sackville-Bagginses deserve more screen time,
>>>>it's his call.
>>>
>>><shrug> If he has the talent to make his *own* movie, he should do
>>>so.
>>
>>But if Jackson wants to see if he can capture the inner vision he has
>>always had of LotR on film, shouldn't he be allowed to do so as well?
>
>"Allowed"? Subject to copyright issues, sure. But he sets himself up
>to be compared to JRRT, and rightfully so.
That goes without saying - he's setting his own vision of LotR up to
be compared to everyone else's visions of it. However, I'm maintaining
that a movie cannot be true to a novel, a painting, or any other art
medium other than film in anything but spirit.
The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen is told in LotR the book. From what I
gather the point of view just moves so that things develop while
Frodo's out cold.
>>>If he *changes* LOTR, he's either improving it, or trashing it.
>>
>>If he _films_ LoTR, he changes it by definition. It's a different
>>medium! Jackson's role is akin to that of the many illustrators of
>>Tolkien's work. (Some of whom he's BTW actively cooperating with to
>>capture the visual "feel" of the artwork.)
>
>Yup. Hence the standard. He chose to do it.
Don't you see? The story is not changed. Tom Bombadil is revoked to
off-camera. The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen comes on-camera. That Queen
of Fairies BS is just that. Don't believe it.
>>>And JRRT set the standard he should be judged by.
>>
>>When did JRRT ever make a movie, or even write a movie script?
>>Tolkien sold the movie rights. As long as Disney didn't have anything
>>to do with the LotR film it was fine by him.
>
>Exactly. JRRT did not intend his work be a movie.
If that is true, why did he not hold on to the movie rights and state
so in his will?
>If Jackson doesn't
>want his worked to be held to the standard of JRRT, he should do
>something else. No one *forced* him to do this.
I seriously have trouble grasping your point. Sure, anything that gets
published deserves judgement by (fair) critics. But judging a movie by
the standard of a book is IMO wrong, and vice versa - "novel"
adaptions of movie scripts, even successful and accomplished movies
tend to be terrible reading on their own merits. Compared to their
respective movie they might not be all that bad.
>>>If he's not up to it, then why try?
>>
>>What?
>>
>>If one cannot paint better than Tolkien could write, why come up with
>>illustrations in the first place? Is that what you mean?
><snip>
>Don't be stupid.
I try not to, provided my fellow debaters do likewise.
>The illustrations *are* compared, by those who view
>them, to the nature of the original work. And if does something
>imbecillic, like "Arwen, Queen of the Fairies", he desrves whatever
>criticism he gets. He also deserves the credit for doing it well,
>*if* that happens.
I'm defending the integrity of the artist here. Saying that Bakshi's
movie was bad is fine - it's a bad movie even for those who have never
heard of LotR the book.
Let's say someone wanted to make an illo of e.g. Arwen. For the sake
of argument, let's further assume the artist had the rather silly
notion of giving her butterfly wings. My point is that it could still
be an exquisite, stunning painting, even if most people did not
associate Arwen with the woman depicted.
Type O Negative covers Beatles on their new album. It's decidedly
different from the original. Does that make it a Beatles song or a
Type O song?
IMO artists may, and should, make their own adaptions and takes on
other works of art if that be their inclination. If you don't want to
pay to experience it, your loss.
--
Larris "Millions of spiritual Creatures
walk the Earth unseen,
both when we wake
and when we sleep." --John Milton
Christopher Adams
>>versions have been made of Shakespeare's plays
>
> And I can only remember two that were any good (KB's Hamlet you mention,
> and Henry V by the same).
Have you never seen the Richard Loncraine-directed film of "Richard III"
starring Ian McKellen?
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
The stage but echoes back the public voice,
The drama's laws the drama's patrons give
For we that live to please, must please to live.
- Samuel Clemens
Ian R Malcomson
>That goes without saying - he's setting his own vision of LotR up to
>be compared to everyone else's visions of it. However, I'm maintaining
>that a movie cannot be true to a novel, a painting, or any other art
>medium other than film in anything but spirit.
But it can remain faithful to the plot.
How about this: I want to make a film about the ACW. Now, let's cut
that Gettysburg bit out, since it doesn't make sense to a global
audience. We'll skimp over the real reason as to why the war started,
and cast the Yankees as absolutely unshakable heroes. Just to make sure
people get the idea, we'll make General Lee's eyes glow red when he's
angry. While we're at it, the Rebel soldiery ought to wear black
uniforms and face-masks.....
>>Exactly. JRRT did not intend his work be a movie.
>
>If that is true, why did he not hold on to the movie rights and state
>so in his will?
Because it's not something he considered anyone in their right mind
would attempt? Especially given that he died in 1973.
>>If Jackson doesn't
>>want his worked to be held to the standard of JRRT, he should do
>>something else. No one *forced* him to do this.
>
>I seriously have trouble grasping your point. Sure, anything that gets
>published deserves judgement by (fair) critics. But judging a movie by
>the standard of a book is IMO wrong, and vice versa - "novel"
>adaptions of movie scripts, even successful and accomplished movies
>tend to be terrible reading on their own merits. Compared to their
>respective movie they might not be all that bad.
If you make a movie based on a novel, or a historical event, then that
original source is *of course* the point from which comparison should be
made. In the same way that novels based on movies are compared to the
movies themselves. More often than not, movie novelisations compare
more favourably to their origin than movies based on novels do, simply
because it is easier to translate the visuals and emotives of a visual
work into words than it is to go the other way. This is why historical
accounts of such events as WWI are often horrific to read, while the
horrors of war are often romanticised (and, thus, lessened) when
translated onto film.
>Let's say someone wanted to make an illo of e.g. Arwen. For the sake
>of argument, let's further assume the artist had the rather silly
>notion of giving her butterfly wings. My point is that it could still
>be an exquisite, stunning painting, even if most people did not
>associate Arwen with the woman depicted.
Art is a very, very strange medium (especially considering some of the
individuals that involve themselves in it). Yes, an artist could
produce a butterfly-winged painting of Arwen, and justify it through
some strange visual association - "Although Arwen does not possess
butterfly wings as per the descriptions of the character provided by
Tolkien, the wings represent the airy side of her character, a facet
shown throughout the story of her romance with Aragorn". Art, moreso
than the moving image, is required to capture the essence of the subject
in a static, two-dimensional depiction. To do otherwise is merely to
illustrate.
>Type O Negative covers Beatles on their new album. It's decidedly
>different from the original. Does that make it a Beatles song or a
>Type O song?
A Beatles song played badly (from what I've heard of Type O..)?
It depends on what changes Type O make to the original song. The
arrangement and feel? Then it's Type O bringing out the emotions
invoked in themselves by the original into a form more outwardly obvious
to themselves, but the song's general message remains the same. The
lyrics? Then they are purely ripping off the collective imaginations of
The Beatles in order to cover for their lack of ability to put across
their own message in the context of their own music. Add to the lyric?
That is difficult, and needs to be taken on a case-for-case basis.
An example: Manson covered The Eurythmic's song Sweet Dreams. The
original paints a fairly surreal, not particularly nice view of society,
and the arrangement makes the message, IMO, seem a little pessimistic
and despondant. Manson's version takes away some of the surreality, and
highlights the nastiness inherent in the song's message, which is
obviously what Manson hears mostly when he listens to the original. The
addition of the incidental lyric to the song serves to highlight further
the facet of the song Manson is attempting to bring forward. Both
versions are, essentially, the same song. Both carry the same message.
The difference is in which part of the message holds emphasis.
Applying a similar theory to LotR, a LotR movie should use the source as
written, using particular methods of motion picture storytelling to
emphasise the film-maker's personal visions as to how the scenes from
the book should appear. No two readers translate events from LotR in
the same way - Sauron is much more menacing and evil to some readers
than to others. Saruman can be seen as a sad, old man, led astray by
grossly underestimating the power of the foe he faced. On the other
hand, Saruman can also be seen as selfish and lustful for power from the
first, with the influence of Sauron merely serving as a catalyst for the
wizard's later activities. "The door is never open to the child without
a trace of sin", and all that. The job of the film-maker, in such
circumstance, is to decide which particular character translation fits
his overall vision best.
However, we have seen the unfortunate attitude in film-makers for many,
many years that they feel it is their God-given right to re-arrange,
cut, add-to, and otherwise mess around with the works of others in order
to make a product that will fill their bank accounts, and serve to sell
lunchboxes. I have no doubt that the LotR film will be a good one, in
the same way as the previous LotR "half-finished" cartoon film was also
good. What concerns me is that, to carry the LotR name, it doesn't just
need to be *good* - it needs to be *accurate*, which is why the
afformentioned cartoon is, quite simply, an abomination.
Perhaps, then, other film-makers will take up the torch, and we'll see
an end to the bastardisation of historical events and literature by the
movie industry.
"Hey, look - you can actually make money by sticking to the original!
Good grief! Who'd have thought it?"
Robert Baldwin
<robm...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>
>>
>> Done right beats done fast every bloody time.
>>
>> The issue is not "precisely in every detail"; it's yet another
>> Hollywood hack chopping up LOTR to make a quick buck. If this
>> Jackson can't do it *right* then he should keep his grubby little paws
>> off it.
>>
>
>Let me see: Are you going to complain as bitterly about seeing the Balrog and seeing its
>fight with Gandalf as you are about the expansion of Arwen's role? If not, why? Because
>both are additions to the script that do not appear in the film.
I'll complain about *any* pointless hacking which gets done.
>Except that Peter Jackson is not from Hollywood, and is a classic "independent"
>film-maker. This is the first film he's done for a Hollywood studio.
A good reason to be more concerned about how *this* film gets handled,
and rely less on his reputation.
None of the
>changes he's making are handed down from the studio, they're done by him.
You know this to be true based on...?
If they work,
>great, if not, its on his head. I don't really see how you can say Bombadil is a vital
>element of the story and Arwen isn't.
I never said that.
>No Bombadil, and the only thing we lose from the rest of the story is Gandalf saying that
>Bombadil would bet bored with the ring and lose it somewhere in the forest.
And a good bit of character development for the hobbits, obviously.
>
>No Arwen, and we have no reason for Aragorn to reject Eowyn, which leads to her joing the
>army in hopes of dying, leading to the destruction of the Chief Nazgul; no banners
>unfurling over hte Pelennor Fields (the single most dramamtic moment in the trilogy IMO).
Which is no reason to make the role of Arwen *other* than what it is
in LOTR. No more, no less.
>> >Remember that if everyone who bought the LoTR trilogy saw these films once, it would
>> >lose money. Its vital to attract NEW people to the films for them to be
>> >successful.
>>
>> And this does that *how*? By pissing off the core market first?
>
>The idea is to make a film that is a good *film*. This may well piss off a SMALL
>percentage of the core market, which I'm guessing is about 10 million folks worldwide
>(figuring that 20% of the readers of the 50 million copies sold are serious fans --
>probably too high). I'm just as much a fan as you, and I'm not pissed off at all.
I'm not pissed. Just anticipating the job will be to the usual
standards of the industry. Than again, I've been down this road
before, with that imbecile Bakshi.
>I just realize that making a movie as close to possible to a book is an excellent way to
>make a bad movie. Things MUST be changed, its a simple fact.
Prove this. Prove that large portions of LOTR *must* be dropped.
Prove, incontrevertably, that *Bombadil *must* be dropped.
The only issue is how
>much, and the motives behind it.
And I have my own ideas about motivations in Hollywood, from whence
came Lorraine Williams.