Interview with Peter Jackson on LoTR Bloopers 790
erth writes "Newsweek has an interview with Peter Jackson asking him what he thinks about some of the most famous and/or obvious bloopers in the LoTR series. Moviemistakes.com has more Fellowhip of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King bloopers as well for your snickering pleasure." I just wanted to give my props to Jackson and all- we took off early yesterday to see the final film. It was everything I hoped for... except for the bits that I expect I'll have to wait for the extended edition DVD to see. And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers.
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most accepted that PJ would get one for the last one after all were released.
Also, the movies were all filmed at once so you could consider the performance to be one big production simply because during production, it was one big contiguous filming. The fact that they were each released one year apart was merely a marketing decision more than anything else.
Any duplicate Oscars wouldn't have been fair since they were each part of one show.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably the worst part for Jackson's chances is that most of the Academy members likely haven't read the books, and there is a popular perception that the movies are more geared to appeasing Tolkein fans instead of a broader audience. All the same, I'll be watching in March, hoping against hope that he wins. Why? Because it will give him that much more clout with the studios on future projects...
What? (Score:2, Interesting)
ToME : Open Source Tolkien game (Score:5, Interesting)
ToME is great for being very faithful and compliant to Tolkien's world. Ok, maybe it's not Middle-Earth Online [lordoftherings.com], but it's free and honestly, this game is freaking addictive !
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
"To Kill a Mockingbird" is the best conversion IMO.
Jackson the liar? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet on the DVD he says "I don't know what people are talking about" - and it doesn't sound like he is kidding, simply being serious??
Grinning in the dark... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Finger (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:4, Interesting)
Stock footage number 5 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's almost like PJ took stock footage of people running out of a cave, added some lava, and threw Rudy and Elijah in front of a blue screen.
I thought i was watching a classic giant bug movie.
Re:ToME : Open Source Tolkien game (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall hearing from a couple of sources that Tolkien actually did intend for Middle-Earth to be the same earth that we stand on right now. After all, he was trying to provide a mythology for the Britons, whom he felt did not have a grand mythology in the same way as the Norse or the Romans. The only source that I can find at the moment is from here [dummies.com], but it does contain the following:
I'm sure that I can dig up more sources from "Letters of J.R. Tolkien" or other books should you require more evidence.
You're right that there aren't any elves, Maiar, or Valar around nowadays, but remember that they all reside in Valinor now, beyond the reaches of men. Sauron was defeated, Saruman's spirit was blown away by the wind from the west, and who knows what happened to the Ents, Trolls, and Orcs. The Fourth Age was the Age of Man, and here we still live.
No, of course it's not real, but it's still a wonderful fantasy - far beyond anything the movies showed you. My fellow readers of The Simarillion and The Bible would understand what I'm talking about when I say how much Tolkien's work paralleled Biblical creation.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in L.A. and one of the more noxious Oscar-season practices is for publicists to actually visit the nursing homes where academy members are clustered for special "viewings" -- I have three academy members who live in my apartment building: all of them are over 60.
Conventional wisdom at this point is that "RoTK" is this year's 300 lb. gorilla at the Oscars. Where New Line is going to end up screwing themselves is that they are submitting for four potential nominees in Best Supporting Actor and two in Best Supporting Actress. Acadmey voters will tend to go elsewhere if split. See New Line Cinema's awards-shill for RoTK [newlineawards.com] for more information (Flash Required).
Maybe the Oscars are irrelevant to you but they are a cottage industry here in L.A., not to mention one of the top rated shows in the world every year. Finally, a lot of non-blockbuster movies and smaller studios depend on a nomination if not an award for their marketing: The Pianist did most of their box office and almost all of their DVD sales as a result of their Oscars.
Los Angeles (and Hollywood) is a factory town, like any other factory town anywhere in the world -- our products just tend to get noticed more. Don't kid yourself: a lot of people's year-round financial well-being depends on the Oscars, both in Los Angeles and around the world.
Bloopers versus more obvious stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
This movie should win the Academy Award for best picture, btu given the track record of the Oscars being given to touch feely Hollywood schmaltz, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
spoiler alert
It fun for movie geeks to spot the bloopers in movies, but how about if we look at this movie from the perspective of somebody who isn't looking for bloopers? Which parts of the movie seem odd and out of place? For me, the only disappointing scene in Return of the King is the scene where Frodo and Sam flee the volcano and get stuck in the middle of a lava field. OK, so that was really dramatic, but could it have been plotted and filmed in a more believable manner?
It was brilliant to start out the movie with a flashback to how Gollum first came into contact with the ring.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if Sauron sees him, the eagles are still faster than the nazgul...
You know, YOU cant give a good answer because Tolkien himself admitted that he used the eagles as Deus ex Machina.
Re:Blooper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. Bear with me for a second here. For contrast I'm going to compare to David Lynch's "Dune"
First off - if Lynch had been allowed to make it a 4 hour extended DVD then most of the movie's problems would've arguably been solved. With that in mind, the style Lynch used was an odd dark mixture, the lighting was convoluted, the scenes were framed in a very "staged" manner, the set was just plain over-the-top weird, and the score by Toto was incredibly melodramatic. I loved it. It fit perfectly with the mood Herbert developed so well in the novel. It fit perfectly with a quasi-religious messianic jihad sci-fi story set in the year 10000AD.
Back to LotR. Tolkein's storytelling is highly grandoise while still being deeply intimate, his elves are glowing with mystique, his scenes are rich and fantastic, even the colors seem saturated when reading the novels. What you describe as horribly framed, overly lit, cheesy and overboard, I would describe simply as 'Fantasy', especially Tolkien fantasy. Peter used that style I think in a similar manner to the way Lynch went over the top with his style in filming Dune, albeit in a more accessable, less esoteric way. And I think in both cases it worked GREAT. Sci-Fi is funky strange worlds. Fantasy is fantastic magical worlds. It's only cheesy when some goof applies it to say.. The Titanic.
How about this "blooper?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Interesting)
The answer, of course, is that LotR is an epic -- a story. The most tactically wise move wasn't the most appropriate move to the tale of growth and struggle against adversity that Tolkein wanted to tell. (Of course, neither's rescuing the heroes with a bunch feathered deus ex machinas but that's another argument for another time).
Re:Joke in Topic! (Score:2, Interesting)
Pro tip: cache common results and don't use *any* database on common queries
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, I'll take the LOTR set over either of them.
Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually finished rereading (for the umpteenth time) ROTK this week, then I saw the movie yesterday. Everyone's talking about this minor change or that minor change, but no one mentioned the MAJOR change. It's almost like people read the book decades ago, and remember only a haze distorted memory.
People quibble over the portrayal of Denethor, but actually it's quite close to the book. The real change here was the despair turning to madness a much earlier. And then people quibbled over the portrayal of Faramir in the third movie, when in fact it's quite accurate, not withstanding trivial changes to his dialogue.
And people are bitching about Sam inflicting physical violence on Gollum. Huh? Now I know for sure they didn't read the books! Sam beat Gollum with his Ithilien staff to the point of breaking the staff (and presumably Gollum's arm). True, it didn't happen at the same point, but there's nothing out of character for Sam to beat the stuffing out of Sneaker.
But the MAJOR change no one talks about is the Army of the Dead! They don't belong at Minas Tirith. Aaaargh! Although I can understand the cinematic reasons for them being there, and fits the tone of the book, it's still probably the largest plot change in the movie. But no one has mentioned it. They're too obsessed with the trivial.
Re:Blooper? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't agree. It's been a bit over a year since I've last reread the LOTR books, but the one thing I remember is the complete lack of any kind of dramatic tension whatsoever for the first half or so of the work, and then, toward the end, turning it WAY up. I thought Peter Jackson conveyed the escalating tension and drama nicely, as well as including the necessary reprieve from the tension. I got exactly the same feeling from the Shire scenes as I did from when I first read the book, and that says a lot to me.
The first two movies, if done exactly like the book's tone, would have been as boring as if they'd stayed in the Shire the whole time and lived their simple little lives like happy little folk. I still love the books, but honestly, even the tense moments in the first half of the book were quickly dampened by the gushy feelgoodness they found around nearly every corner.
I'm no film savant, and I'm sure there were many things I don't recall that Peter may have goofed on (Gimli does comes to mind however), but I think that this trilogy is probably the best possible result of a LOTR movie, at least for this decade.
Re:Slashdotted (of course) (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, and I imagine that this will be addressed in the Extended Version of Return of the King. As they weren't shown drinking the Entish water in the theatrical release of TTT, there shouldn't be a reference to it in the theatrical release of RotK. This isn't a blooper at all.
entwives? (Score:3, Interesting)
-Zipwow
Re:Bloopers or not... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the ring was important (Score:1, Interesting)
Return of the King - Ending was crap (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's reasonable on topic, I'd like to voice my thoughts on the Return of the King.
I walked in with advance warning that right about the point where you think the movie is finished, be prepared for another 20 minutes of wrap-up. Even knowing this, I was totally unprepared for the lame and completely unncessary scenes at the end and honestly it ruined the experience for me.
First of all...okay, Frodo and Sam are good friends, but could Peter Jackson have made it any more homosexual? The audience where I watched kept laughing every time there was a scene with Frodo and Sam all dewy-eyed staring at each other with sappy music. I swear for a split second everyone thought Frodo was going to kiss Sam on the lips as they said goodbye at the boat.
Second, after blowing our load at the battle of the black gate, all everyone wants to do is roll over and go to sleep. I don't know if my experience was the same as everyone else's but for the next twenty minutes I witnessed the combined figiting of 300+ people, standing up, then sitting back down, murmuring, sighing loudly, leaving, groaning...it was pretty damn distracting and unpleasant.
Now, giving that this movie is aimed at the masses and not particularly at die-hard LOTR fans (given that the plot was changes to give it more mainstream appeal), why in God's name would Peter Jackson decide to throw in all this extra crap at the end which a) pissed off real fans because it wasn't the Scourging b) pissed off mainstream fans because it was irrelavant crap.
Everyone I talked to was in agreement that the movie should have ended with (ugh) Gandalf on the eagles rescuing the hobbits. Particularly the view from on high with Frodo flying over the mountain. Everyone at that point knows they are safe, that the bad guys are gone, good guys win, fade to "The End" and stick the rest of the movie on DVD.
But no...cut to the coronation scene. Okay, we'll indulge Jackson and sit through a completely predictable closing scene. Oh he gets the girl, yay. Oh, the hobbits are honored okay...allright, perfect ending now, right?
Nope...okay, back to the shire, back to the pub, having a nice homey scene. Clink the glasses, hey that's a perfect place to end it, we've come full circle from Shire to Shire. End, right?
NO...now we drag Bilbo's withered carcass around to take him to the Elf ship. Why? What mainstream fan even remembers this all started three years ago with Bilbo? As far as anyone knows, he died of old age from not having the ring. You leave Sauruman's ending out of the movie, a character that played a much more pivotal role, but instead show what happens to basically a bit character? Why not tell me the life story of the doorkeeper at the bar too? I really want to know if he was able to pursue his dream of becoming a lute player. Okay, so Bilbo asks about the ring, Frodo lost it, cute scene. Cut, it's a wrap.
AAAAAAAAH NO. Now we have an interminally long and weepy scene at the boat. Oh, Frodo's going too? Boo hoo, boo hoo, boo hoo. Okay, he's going on board with Bilbo and Gandalf, the book has been turned over to Sam, and now the ship sails into the sunset in terrible movie cliche number #412. Fade out...perfect time for "The End"
MOTHER#@#@!%!% JACKSON NO DAMMIT...(sound of entire audience groaning at once) we are back at the shire to show Sam coming home? WTF? Did anyone think he was going to run away and go whoring? We knew he was married and had kids. Why do we need to see it? Who cares? And so we end staring at the round hobbit door...did the movie even begin with a round hobbit door...ah forget it, is this the end?
Okay...The End. Now I can go take that leak I've been holding in for a kidney-busting three and a half hours.
WTF? My four hour validation doesn't cover Return of the King? I have to pay an extra $4 because no one from the theater bothered to memo the parking staff about the insane length of the number one box office draw?
And maybe now you can see why I didn't particularly enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped.
-JoeShmoe
.
Re:I'm looking forward to Jackson doing the Hobbit (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, all of the dwarves names are taken directly from Norse mythology, as is Gandalf (which translates to Magic Elf, basically). The dwarves themselves are pretty grim for the most part in the book, if any can said to be comic relief it'd be Bombur. As for their songs, with the exception of the cleaning-up song in the beginning, all their songs are about war, or treasure, or the past. Not exactly light-hearted.
Re:I got 4! (Score:3, Interesting)
Because of research into medieval tactics. Cavalry almost never fights mounted unless the enemy infantry is already scattered. Ever seen "Braveheart"? William Wallace hardly thought that trick up; in fact mounted cavalry has almost never defeated formed infantry.
Re:Blooper? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any way not from a film history class, anyway. The first feature length movie was D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation", which today could have just been called "How the Ku Klux Klan Saved Dixie". This was fifty years before the civil rights movement, but it was still a controversial point of view, so his second feature was a kind of apology for it: 1916's Intolerance [gildasattic.com], about the fall of Babylon. The movie involved a literal cast of thousands, as well as both the construction and complete demoloition of an entire city. Nothing in the following century has come close to the size of "Intolerance", with the near exceptions of "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings".
I don't mean to imply that the LOTR series hasn't been huge -- obviously, it has. But if you try to argue that nothing comes close, you're being ignorant. It has been done before, a century ago.
My main question, which remains to be seen, is whether or not anyone will remember the LOTR movies a century for now, or even a quarter of a century. They're obviously big, but I'm not yet convinced that they're the massive landmarks that all the fanboys seem to be convinced they are. Time alone will tell how these movies, and Peter Jackson behind them, are remembered.
Re:Blooper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... let's run down the list, shall we? This is from someone who, while he might not be as big a fanboy as some, has read the books 5-6 times through (I've lost track), and also plays Middle Earth Role-Playing in a very long-running campaign, so we discuss LOTR *a lot*.
Gandalf?
Seems 100% accurate to the books.
*All* the hobbits
Dead on, at least characterization-wise. Might have missed some of the great lines using these characters, but nothing that jumped out at me.
Aragorn
Again, don't see how Aragorn/Strider is any different from the books. OK, maybe a few scenes were left out (and yes, I missed some of those, like the scenes of him healing Eowyn, Faramir, and Merry), and some new scenes introduced to advance the "love" plotline, but BFD... Vigo nailed the part as far as I'm concerned.
Arwen
OK, this is the biggest change. Now she actually has a part and some characterization. Most of her "screen time" in the book is just flashbacks to her and Aragorn meeting in Lothlorien. I don't mind this side-track too much in FOTR, although in the next two movies I think it got too much screen time and led to too many deviations from the book. On the other hand, I see that this plotline did help "sell" the movie to some people who had not read the books... a minor concession to make the movie more interesting and accessible to the General Public.
Gimli/Legolas
Eh, a little bland, but neither character is very well fleshed out in the books anyway. They exist mostly as an illustration of "cooperation among the races" and "friendship". I love the characters, but I accept that they are minor characters over-all -- there is very little they do in the course of the whole trilogy that is of great importance to the storyline itself.
Boromir
Dead on. Sean Bean was great in this part, I'm sorry that he did so well and yet missed out on the other two movies
Elrond
As with Legolas and Gimli, he has little to no character in the books... he is a prop. Giving him some emotions and motivations, and letting Hugo Weaving play the part seems like a good decision to me. I think as with Arwen, Elrond in the movie is very different and led to significant deviations from the books, but nothing I object to.
Galadriel
Her scenes all got clipped way too short. Cate Blanchett was great in the part, but the movie moved the time in Lorien along too fast... However, I don't think the overall 'spirit' of the character suffered that much. *Horrible* CG in the "Mirror of Galadriel" scene, but we still got to hear the line I love so much:
"I pass the test. I will diminish, and go into The West, and remain Galadriel".
Since that line closes a plotline from the First Age and the Silmarillion, getting to deliver that one line saves anything else wrt Galadriel.
Eowyn
Another minor character who steals the show. She is great in ROTK. I wish her scene killing the Witch King has been drawn out more (this is another one of the scenes I *love* in the books), but she is a very well done character in both script and acting.
Gollum
I have no comment on this. If you want to criticize Gollum, I'm afraid our perspectives are so far apart as to be incomprehensible.
So, umm... who is left? Saruman? The Nazgul? Sauron? Come on, convince me that some character just got savaged by Peter Jackson. Other than Tom Bombadil, you'll have a hard time convincing me
So, air your complaints in specifics... I'd like to know. I don't feel betrayed at all... I feel damn glad Peter Jackson fought to make these movies and delivered an epic that I will watch and re-watch for years to come.
Oh, and I still own the books too, and I can still read those! Funny how that works, they didn't burn all copies of the books when they did the movie!
Re:Cinematic impact (Score:3, Interesting)
Tension?! Something huge and evil and powerful is coming your way. Don't get between it and it's goal. In fact, don't even be in eyesight. You are nothing to it.
Running is a great way to stay alive. I'm amazed the poster you are responding to hadn't picked up on that.