Talking to Jackson about the state of the movie
Zoetrope
frequents Usenet, I'm drafting a (hopefully cogent) letter to Jackson
that identifies fans' major concerns and misgivings about the current
state of the movie(s). Once it's sure that all concerns are addressed
and the letter isn't too venomous, I will send it to Ain't It Cool News
- its subject matter, controversial nature and alternative viewpoint
should give it a decent chance at getting posted, and it is verified
that Peter Jackson reads the site for feedback.
Right now, the problems I see with the film are primarily related to a
failure to remain faithful to the original work, in terms of (gross)
mischaracterization, uncharacteristic dialogue and situations, and the
annihilation of subtleties (such as the uncomfortable situation between
Dwarves and Elves, Gandalf's entire reason for being, and
immortal-mortal romance). Other potential problems include sets (the
current sets look very cartoonish), casting (especially Mr. Wood
refusing to read the source work), and the unnecessary deletion and
addition/combination/role-switching of characters.
Can anyone add any significant problems espied in either the cast list,
script review, or any verifiable external material related to the film?
Or, can anyone expand on any of the points listed in a lucid manner?
Also, if anyone isn't too turned off by it already, has anyone
identified any positive points in the cast list, script review, etc?
Any and all help will be appreciated.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
RC
> Since I seriously doubt that Peter Jackson or any of his associates
> frequents Usenet, I'm drafting a (hopefully cogent) letter to Jackson
> that identifies fans' major concerns and misgivings about the >current
> state of the movie(s). Once it's sure that all concerns are >addressed
> and the letter isn't too venomous, I will send it to Ain't It Cool News
> - its subject matter, controversial nature and alternative viewpoint
> should give it a decent chance at getting posted, and it is verified
> that Peter Jackson reads the site for feedback.
>
> Right now, the problems I see with the film are primarily related to a
> failure to remain faithful to the original work, in terms of (gross)
> mischaracterization, uncharacteristic dialogue and situations, and >the
> annihilation of subtleties (such as the uncomfortable situation >between
> Dwarves and Elves, Gandalf's entire reason for being, and
> immortal-mortal romance).
Well, you draw all this conclusions from some very brief reviews of a very,
very old script. Back in the Miramax days this was a 2 film movie, Peter and
co writers where in an entirely different situation, and Miramax wasn't
giving near the support New Line does.
The movies are in the production stage now, and there is absolutly no chance
that there will be any script changes. If you where Michael De Luca, maybe
then some changes could be forced. But niether you, or all the folks down at
the LotR accuracy page (peace folks) are. So plz give the whole thing a
break.
>Other potential problems include sets (the
> current sets look very cartoonish),
s p e c i a l e f f e c t s.... Did you really think that what we saw will
remotely resemble what we will see on screen?
>casting (especially Mr. Wood
> refusing to read the source work),
He didn't refuse anything, he just stated that he never read the books,
besides the hobbit. I'm shure that somewhere along the line he will get
curious and will want to know more about his character besides the
information he gets from the script.
>and the unnecessary deletion and
> addition/combination/role-switching of characters.
> Can anyone add any significant problems espied in either the cast >list,
script review, or any verifiable external material related to the >film? Or,
can anyone expand on any of the points listed in a lucid >manner? Also, if
anyone isn't too turned off by it already, has anyone
> identified any positive points in the cast list, script review, etc?
> Any and all help will be appreciated.
Pj and team are doing a great job down under. I suggest we all calm down
now, wait for some real material ( an in depth review of the recent script,
official photography....) starts coming through before we declare this
project total crap. And if you think you won't like the final product then,
just stay home and don't see it.
Don't get me wrong, I also want this trilogy to be as faithfull to Tolkien
as possible, but what you seem to want is an exact translation of the books
to the screen. That would only be possible if Tolkien was directing, and he
isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
RC
webmaster @ www.ringzone.net
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>Pj and team are doing a great job down under.
Excuse me, but how do you know that?
I suggest we all calm down
>now, wait for some real material ( an in depth review of the recent script,
>official photography....) starts coming through before we declare this
>project total crap. And if you think you won't like the final product then,
>just stay home and don't see it.
Right.
>Don't get me wrong, I also want this trilogy to be as faithfull to Tolkien
>as possible, but what you seem to want is an exact translation of the books
>to the screen. That would only be possible if Tolkien was directing, and he
>isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
Actually, quite faithful film versions of books have been produced many
times. I'm not talking about minor plot twigs, which may at times be
inevitable. But to mention only two examples of many, David Lean's film
version of "Oliver Twist" and the film version of "Sense and Sensibility" a
couple of years ago were very faithful to the originals - and successful
with the audience.
Öjevind Lång
Zoetrope
<ring...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The movies are in the production stage now, and there is absolutly
> no chance
> that there will be any script changes. If you where Michael De
> Luca, maybe
> then some changes could be forced. But niether you, or all the
> folks down at
> the LotR accuracy page (peace folks) are. So plz give the whole
> thing a
> break.
That's incorrect... "Shooting scripts" get changed all the time. ALL
the time. And I never, ever said anything about 'forcing' changes.
Drafting a letter to let Jackson know that there are quite a few people
who are less than thrilled with what they've seen so far is a
completely plausible way to enact change. Don't tell me that revising
the scripts from two to three movies is going to have any effect on
mischaracterizations - those, unlike scene cutting and story
condensation, are traits that would persist through both drafts, if
that's the vision Jackson has for the films.
> >Other potential problems include sets (the
> > current sets look very cartoonish),
> s p e c i a l e f f e c t s.... Did you really think that what we
> saw will
> remotely resemble what we will see on screen?
Uh, what? We're talking SETS here, not character models or the like.
I've seen lots and lots and lots and lots of movie sets from different
stages of production, and have rarely been surprised at the outcome.
Graphical touch-ups and the addition of matte paintings and color
muting won't change the cartoony look...
> He didn't refuse anything, he just stated that he never read the
> books,
> besides the hobbit. I'm shure that somewhere along the line he
> will get
> curious and will want to know more about his character besides the
> information he gets from the script.
I was under the impression that his attitude was more like "haven't,
and won't". If you can produce concrete, non-speculative information
to the contrary, feel free.
> Pj and team are doing a great job down under. I suggest we all
> calm down
> now, wait for some real material ( an in depth review of the
> recent script,
> official photography....) starts coming through before we declare
> this
> project total crap. And if you think you won't like the final
> product then,
> just stay home and don't see it.
You don't know what kind of job Jackson's doing "down under".
Saying "if you don't like it, don't see it" is something I might have
expected to hear in grade school. Listen, a series of movies based on
one of my all-time favorite series of books is being made, and you
expect me to turn a blind eye to it if it looks like it's not coming
along too well? Bugger off. I have a vested interest in the outcome -
I *want to see a quality Tolkien film*. Here's some of your own advice:
If you don't like my criticisms, don't read my posts. Ha. Neener
neener.
> Don't get me wrong, I also want this trilogy to be as faithfull to
> Tolkien
> as possible, but what you seem to want is an exact translation of
> the books
> to the screen.
Nope. That isn't what I said, or implied, or otherwise meant. I want
a *good* film translation of the books. Additions and differences are
fine, as long as they're not utterly fucking ridiculous (GIMLI HURLS
HIS AXE... WHICH EMBEDS ITSELF INTO THE NAZGUL'S HUGE HEAD!!!, anyone?).
> directing, and he
> isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
No.
Doctor Slump
>Well, you draw all this conclusions from some very brief reviews of a very,
>very old script. Back in the Miramax days this was a 2 film movie, Peter and
>co writers where in an entirely different situation, and Miramax wasn't
>giving near the support New Line does.
>The movies are in the production stage now, and there is absolutly no chance
>that there will be any script changes. If you where Michael De Luca, maybe
>then some changes could be forced. But niether you, or all the folks down at
>the LotR accuracy page (peace folks) are. So plz give the whole thing a
>break.
If PJ said: "You know, I was forced to read LOTR at school and I hated
it. Besides, I have to do this job because of a contract I don't like.
So, now I am going to make the worst film I can, change everything,
the dialogs, the characters, the spirit of the book..." (what in my
opinion he is actually doing), I'm sure some people in these groups
would still say: "Hey, let's give him a chance!. You haven't watched
the film yet. And if you don't like it don't go to the cinema".
As for me, I think the films will be visually right but what we know
about the script JUST STINKS (as most Hollywood production nowadays).
And it doesn't matter wether it was a previous script, and there are
changes in the final one: it shows a total lack of respect for the
book, and laughs at the millions of readers and lovers of LOTR.
Just my two cents.
Doctor Slump
jap0...@teleline.es
RC
> That's incorrect... "Shooting scripts" get changed all the time. ALL
> the time. And I never, ever said anything about 'forcing' changes.
> Drafting a letter to let Jackson know that there are quite a few people
> who are less than thrilled with what they've seen so far is a
> completely plausible way to enact change.
I only think that 'what you have seen' is such a small bit of the whole
project...
If you had seen the video PJ an crew made that intially convinced Bob Shaye
to do 3
movies, if you had seen the fx work, the gollum design.... Nobody has.
Again, you base your
opinions on two reviews of a dated script, and some spy photos of
(unfinished) sets.
> Uh, what? We're talking SETS here, not character models or the like.
> I've seen lots and lots and lots and lots of movie sets from different
> stages of production, and have rarely been surprised at the outcome.
> Graphical touch-ups and the addition of matte paintings and color
> muting won't change the cartoony look...
Ok, matter of taste here. I like the hobbiton and bree design, you don't.
Anyway, most of the reactions have been positive until now, which of course
doesn't mean yours has to be too....
> I was under the impression that his attitude was more like "haven't,
> and won't". If you can produce concrete, non-speculative information
> to the contrary, feel free.
> You don't know what kind of job Jackson's doing "down under".
You are absolutely right here. I don't know what kind of job he is doing,
but I
believe and hope it to be a very good one. Of course, I can't proof that,
but I've
seen his previous work,
(ok, if you forget the splatter stuff) and I think he is the right man for
the job.
> Saying "if you don't like it, don't see it" is something I might have
> expected to hear in grade school.
Nananaaana.... That's the child in me... can't help it.
>Listen, a series of movies based on
> one of my all-time favorite series of books is being made, and you
> expect me to turn a blind eye to it if it looks like it's not coming
> along too well? Bugger off. I have a vested interest in the outcome -
> I *want to see a quality Tolkien film*. Here's some of your own advice:
> If you don't like my criticisms, don't read my posts. Ha. Neener
> neener.
I don't expect you to turn a blind on anything, I just expect you to base
your
criticisms on more solid information. Believe me, if in the next 18 months
we
learn that PJ is making a total mess out of it, I will be in the front line
to criticise.
But not now. I want to know more first.
> Nope. That isn't what I said, or implied, or otherwise meant. I want
> a *good* film translation of the books.
Same here.
>Additions and differences are
> fine, as long as they're not utterly fucking ridiculous (GIMLI HURLS
> HIS AXE... WHICH EMBEDS ITSELF INTO THE NAZGUL'S HUGE HEAD!!!, anyone?).
Of course this is a stupid addition, and I can only hope it's one of Peters
little jokes,
and only a memory now...
> directing, and he
> isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
> No.
Ok, allow me to refrase that. Live with the fact that the movie wont suite
your personal ideal, and that it
will include adaptations to the story you probably wont like.
Don't live, and act against it, with the idea that some director is
brutalising your all-time favorite series of books.
I wish you good luck.
RC
Webmaster ringzone.net
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Ron Ploeg
RC wrote:
(snip)
>
> > > directing, and he
> > > isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
>
> > No.
>
> Ok, allow me to refrase that. Live with the fact that the movie wont suite
> your personal ideal, and that it
> will include adaptations to the story you probably wont like.
This is sound advice, since adaptations and personal views (of the
producers) are unavoidable. However, I do not believe that is what is
being debated here. Loyalty to the work of JRR Tolkien is. That is not
an easy concept, but at least a sound SCRIPT should be an achievable
goal, if pursued with care and respect for the author of The Lord of the
Rings.
>
> Don't live, and act against it, with the idea that some director is
> brutalising your all-time favorite series of books.
>
> I wish you good luck.
There is neither need for patronising nor defaitism IMO. The Tolkien
NG's are an important platform for discussions of this kind. I trust you
can appreciate that, Webmaster of ringzone.net.
>
> RC
> Webmaster ringzone.net
Sincerely,
Ron Ploeg
--
http://home.wxs.nl/~hobbiton
At your service!
Öjevind Lång
>RC wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>
>> > > directing, and he
>> > > isn't, so that won't happen. Live with it.
>>
[snip]
>
>> Don't live, and act against it, with the idea that some director is
>> brutalising your all-time favorite series of books.
>>
>> I wish you good luck.
>
>There is neither need for patronising nor defaitism IMO. The Tolkien
>NG's are an important platform for discussions of this kind. I trust you
>can appreciate that, Webmaster of ringzone.net.
>>
>> RC
>> Webmaster ringzone.net
Attaboy, Ron! Why do these people think they are entitled to tell us that we
have no right to criticize Peter Jackson's scripts, or any other reported
item about the films? As you point out, this is a Tolkien group dedicated to
all aspects of Tolkien's life and works; it is not a fan site for Peter
Jackson.
Öjevind
RC
we
> have no right to criticize Peter Jackson's scripts, or any other reported
> item about the films?
Now, just a minute." These people"? Who do you think I am? Some clueless
Peter Jackson fan
that doesn't knows what LotR stands for? I shurely can respect your points
of view, but you will have to
respect mine too. And when exactly did I say that you couldn't criticize
Peters work? All I said is that
you are moaning over a draft for a script that never made it. That's all.
And you don't even know for
shure what is actually in that old draft.
>As you point out, this is a Tolkien group dedicated to
> all aspects of Tolkien's life and works; it is not a fan site for Peter
> Jackson.
And what the hell was I doeing then, besides discussing Tolkiens work? Do
you wish to ban all LotR movie
discussion from here? Or you only accept that kind of discussion when it's
against Peter?
Do all the members of this group feel this way?
Rodrigo.
Steuard Jensen
> And what the hell was I doeing then, besides discussing Tolkiens
> work? Do you wish to ban all LotR movie discussion from here? Or you
> only accept that kind of discussion when it's against Peter?
There are substantial factions here that don't think that _any_ movie
treatment is worthwhile. While I'm not one of them, I can see their
points. I'm not entirely sure what the objection was to your post,
but it looked to me like some people felt that they were being
condemned for their disapproval of the films. I didn't really get
that impression from what you wrote, but again, I was somewhat
confused by the whole thing.
As for banning all LotR movie discussion from the group, there have
been many times over the past few years that I would almost have gone
along with such an idea. :) It's less irritating now that a movie is
actually being made, of course. It's also less irritating now that we
know the primary cast. Now if only new people would read the group for
_one day_ before they ask "Hey! Is there a movie being made of
LotR?!?" :)
> Do all the members of this group feel this way?
I'm not sure exactly what way you're referring to. I, at least,
remain cautiously optimistic about the movies, despite some serious
misgivings about bits and pieces here and there. For example, I don't
mind Arwen's "Oh, you... man!" quote nearly as much as I mind the
warping of their entire relationship (Aragorn trying to protect Arwen
by not having one, that is). Still, I can see why such a change might
be necessary: how else will Jackson be able to make the audience
understand the subtlties of immortality, and the importance of the
choice Arwen must make? I'm not saying that this _is_ the only way,
certainly, but I _suspect_ that it's the best way of getting the ideas
across that Jackson could find. I won't be willing to say it's a
failure until I've seen the end product.
Steuard Jensen
grimgard
Steuard Jensen wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what way you're referring to. I, at least,
> remain cautiously optimistic about the movies, despite some serious
> misgivings about bits and pieces here and there. For example, I don't
> mind Arwen's "Oh, you... man!" quote nearly as much as I mind the
> warping of their entire relationship (Aragorn trying to protect Arwen
> by not having one, that is). Still, I can see why such a change might
> be necessary: how else will Jackson be able to make the audience
> understand the subtlties of immortality, and the importance of the
> choice Arwen must make? I'm not saying that this _is_ the only way,
> certainly, but I _suspect_ that it's the best way of getting the ideas
> across that Jackson could find. I won't be willing to say it's a
> failure until I've seen the end product.
> Steuard Jensen
Well, I *was* cautiously optimistic in the beginning, but I'm starting to
experience a nagging concern that Jackson might wind up doing what other
directors before him have done. I can honestly say that I thoroughly
enjoyed such movies as Jaws, The Excorsist and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's
Nest, but they all share a single disturbing trait - they drastically alter
the definitive struggles in the books upon which they are based. The Lord
of the Rings is, first and foremost, the story of Frodo Baggins and his
struggles with the One Ring. One could conceivably tell the story from
another viewpoint so that Aragorn becomes the major protagonist, and it may
very well make a good story for the big screen. It would, however, IMHO,
represent not an adaptation of the original story, but rather a variation
on it. I have been hoping, ever since I first heard of the project, for a
reasonably decent adaptation, so the latter would be a disappointment.
Still, I'm not going to pass judgement until I see the first movie at
least. And, however it falls out, I'm sure I'll wind up buying scads of
the merchandise, whether I like it or not. Being a collector is kind of
like being a dragon - we can hardly tell a good bit of work from a bad,
though we usually have a good notion of the current market value. >-/
grimgard
Öjevind Lång
goes...
RC wrote:
[snip]
>Now, just a minute." These people"? Who do you think I am? Some clueless
>Peter Jackson fan
>that doesn't knows what LotR stands for? I shurely can respect your points
>of view, but you will have to
>respect mine too. And when exactly did I say that you couldn't criticize
>Peters work? All I said is that
>you are moaning over a draft for a script that never made it. That's all.
>And you don't even know for
> shure what is actually in that old draft.
That draft shows some of Peter Jackson's "talent" as a script writer. Hence,
we had every right to "moan" over it. You are telling us that we have no
right whatsoever to express any misgivings about Jackson's project. You tell
us to "live with it". As for not knowing "for shure" what is in that old
draft; are you really saying that the old drafts reviewed at Ain't It Cool
News and then by Xoanon are not genuine? Or that the reviewers are lying?
The drafts share a sad resemblance which makes it credible that they were
written by the same person. The same is true of those casting descriptions
published some months ago. That leads some of us to fear that a person with
so little ability to write a good Tolkien script will not suddenly acquire
it.
>>As you point out, this is a Tolkien group dedicated to
>> all aspects of Tolkien's life and works; it is not a fan site for Peter
>> Jackson.
>
>And what the hell was I doeing then, besides discussing Tolkiens work? Do
>you wish to ban all LotR movie
>discussion from here? Or you only accept that kind of discussion when it's
>against Peter?
You were not discussing Tolkien's work. You were defending Jackson's against
any expression of misgivings. Do you only accept discussion which is
supportive of Jackson? You give that impression.
>Do all the members of this group feel this way?
Some are very uneasy. Others are not.
Öjevind Lång
RC
Hence,
> we had every right to "moan" over it. You are telling us that we have no
> right whatsoever to express any misgivings about Jackson's project. You
tell
> us to "live with it". As for not knowing "for shure" what is in that old
> draft; are you really saying that the old drafts reviewed at Ain't It Cool
> News and then by Xoanon are not genuine?
> Or that the reviewers are lying?
> The drafts share a sad resemblance which makes it credible that they were
> written by the same person. The same is true of those casting descriptions
> published some months ago. That leads some of us to fear that a person
with
> so little ability to write a good Tolkien script will not suddenly acquire
> it.
I thought about this one, and you have a point there. Maybe Peter thinks
it's ok
to choose different points of view, like telling the story from an romantic
Aragorn-Arwen angle, or ridiculise the relation between Gimli and Legolas. I
f that is what he thinks, even if it's under studio pressure, then the hell
with it. One Phantom Menace is enough.
But then again, I don't recall the review by AICN to be negative.
It seemed to me that Moriarty was very touched by it, and he did
seemed to be an huge fan.... Xoanon's review then. Without a doubt,
he has the script, but I hope he will bringus a more in depth review on the
story and the character handling...As you say, fear is amongst some of you,
and that will only be confirmed or taken away when somebody has the
chance to have a look at the finished, final script.
> >>As you point out, this is a Tolkien group dedicated to
> >> all aspects of Tolkien's life and works; it is not a fan site for Peter
> >> Jackson.
> >And what the hell was I doeing then, besides discussing Tolkiens work? Do
> >you wish to ban all LotR movie
> >discussion from here? Or you only accept that kind of discussion when
it's
> >against Peter?
> You were not discussing Tolkien's work. You were defending Jackson's
against
> any expression of misgivings. Do you only accept discussion which is
> supportive of Jackson? You give that impression.
Well, I do not mean to do so. I give him the benefit of the doubt, that's
all.
Based on someof his previous films, I think he his capable to handle it.
Some means the Frighteners. To be truly honest, I dislike everything
before it. So much for me being a rabbit PJ fan.... I just like his latest
work.
>> Do all the members of this group feel this way?
> Some are very uneasy. Others are not.
Ok then, can we agree that I'm not the brainless PJ freak you took me for?
I suppose that that's what you meant by "these people".... Don't worry
though,
I know that you where reacting to my rather rude post
RC
Webmaster http://www.ringzone.net
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>
>>> Do all the members of this group feel this way?
>> Some are very uneasy. Others are not.
>
>Ok then, can we agree that I'm not the brainless PJ freak you took me for?
> I suppose that that's what you meant by "these people".... Don't worry
>though,
>I know that you where reacting to my rather rude post
That's fair enough. I never called you anything as bad as the phase you use
above, and I take back the "these people". Let's hope we'll get some
reliable info about the final script for the movies. It's just that the
casting descriptions, Moriarty's script review and Xoanon's script review
all seem to indicate similar traits in the way Jackson works on the films -
traits that many in the newsgroups would prefer not to see.
And I was not reacting just to you. Other debaters in the past have told
us that any change of the plot line in the films, no matter how unnecessary,
would be Jackson's call and something we had to accept. "Live with" - yes.
"Accept", in the sense of "approve of" - no.
As I've written before, there are many examples of films that have managed
to stay close to the original plotline and still be successes. Let's hope
that's what Jackson achieves.
Öjevind