PJ talks about the sequels...not good news.

[Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Bucky
Cyber Thorin is to PJ as
Won't Liv Tyler look great at the head of the Army that marches to the Black Gate?
.

What!!!!!!!!! Tell me your joking!!! No she would not look great at the head of an army.

 

[PRH]

Originally posted by baraka
You are joking right, please tell me you are joking.

Do you want to know?

 

[Chymaera]

PJ must have read the books but I don't think he really GOT the story.

TTT: Frodo/Sam/Gollum; meet, go to Black gates, head south to Morgul, meet Faramir, go to cross roads, close call with witch-king's army, meet Shelob.

TTT: Aragorn/Gimli/Legolas; Chase Uruki, meet Eomer, meet Gandlf, meet Theoden, to Helms Deep,

TTT: Merry/Pippen; captured by uruki, uruki meet Riders, escape, meet Treebeard, Entmoot, ents meet Saruman, Hurons save bacon at Helms Deep,

All meet at Orthanc, enprison Saruman, Nazguls,head for Minas Tirith.

If PJ can't see 4 hours of action and drama in that he's not trying

 

[Snaga]

I think the more serious problem is the lack of Frodo/Sam material in RotK. After all there's only 3 chapters vs many more for Aragorn/Merry/Pip etc.

In the book, JRRT gets one thread well ahead of the other. I don't see it as particularly wrong to even it up.

 

[Glaurung]

I have to say that I believe Peter Jackson knows exactly what he is doing. The guy is a professional filmmaker, no I'm not saying that he is infallible because nobody is, but I'd say he has looked at the scenes he has shot and, in attempting to edit them into two comprehensive and enjoyable films, is going to order them in the best possible way. Obviously some scenes are going to have to be cut or moved to provide a sense of "cinematic balance" to the whole thing. Would you prefer it if he did, for instance, have the Shelob scene at the end of the second film and yet have it absolutely ruin the whole pacing of the film? And talking about balance, how the hell could PJ possibly justify having Arwen featured so prominently in the first film and then just conveniently ignore her in the second film? He can't it just wouldn't make sense. He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it. You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

 

[Grond]

Originally posted by Glaurung
...I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are excepting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

You're right. It isn't the dark ages; however, portraying Arwen at Helm's Deep is no longer a distortion of a character, it is the creation of one. No female character of any kind appeared at Helm's Deep in the book. Using your logic, they should have just done an adaptation of Sword of Shannara or Wheel of Time and simply called it Lord of the Rings. Same difference.

 

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Glaurung
And talking about balance, how the hell could PJ possibly justify having Arwen featured so prominently in the first film and then just conveniently ignore her in the second film? He can't it just wouldn't make sense. He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it.

Exactly my point and the point I've been trying to make since i first protested this..Because PJ made such a travesty of Arwen, he has no choice but to continue to do so to justify her revamped role to begin with....However, I DO say that is why she never should have been done the way she was in the first place.

You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are excepting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

Please.....It's not about political correctness or having a female image in the movie. It's about remaining true to the characters of the book that the movie claims to be based on, male or female. I'm sure most people who've read Tolkien didn't go to the movie saying, "Boy! I sure hope that there is a strong female presence in the movie!" I, and other fans of the book expect to see what we've read and identified with....a true rendition (as much as possible) to epic, LoTR. And most people who don't know anything about Tolkien probably couldn't have cared less if the Arwen part was not thrown in...I can't see any protest about the lack of female characters in movies, more then the lack of male characters in other movies....If people are gonna get so hung up on that, they don't know how to pick their movies, and they don't know how to be entertained.

 

[Snaga]

Glaurung

I agree, but as you will already have gathered, the Dark Ages have some ardent fans here.

 

[baraka]

He must feature her in some way in the second film and if the best way of doing that means having her at Helm's Deep so be it. You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

Ok, i understand it, but i don´t like it. I would have liked to see Glorfindel instead.

But i think that PJ movie adaptation of LOTR was great.!

 

[PRH]

It probably would've spawned fewer changes if PJ had just made Aragorn marry Glorfindel at the end.

 

[baraka]

if PJ had just made Aragorn marry Glorfindel at the end.

Hmmmm.

 

[Glaurung]

Please.....It's not about political correctness or having a female image in the movie. It's about remaining true to the characters of the book that the movie claims to be based on, male or female. I'm sure most people who've read Tolkien didn't go to the movie saying, "Boy! I sure hope that there is a strong female presence in the movie!" I, and other fans of the book expect to see what we've read and identified with....a true rendition (as much as possible) to epic, LoTR. And most people who don't know anything about Tolkien probably couldn't have cared less if the Arwen part was not thrown in...I can't see any protest about the lack of female characters in movies, more then the lack of male characters in other movies....If people are gonna get so hung up on that, they don't know how to pick their movies, and they don't know how to be entertained.

Star Wars saga, Indiana Jones, Gladiator, Ben Hur, Braveheart, The Matrix: just a few examples of epic films where there is a substantial female presence to counterbalance the testosterone heavy plot. I agree, people don't go into the story expecting there to be a female dominated love story, because that's not what movies like these are about. However filmmakers do realize that it is profitable to put the love story angle in movies because there is, like it or not, a significant number of people out there who find such stuff appealing. Profit is one of the major reasons the Lord of the Rings movie ever got made. It is one of the major reasons why we have such a film to see today. Believe me PJ, who was ultimately in charge of making sure that the film did well financially, wouldn't have put the Arwen scenes in there if he didn't believe that it would serve to get more people into the theatres and therefore increase the profit margin. I would have been extremely surprised if I had went to see this movie and the Arwen sub plot had not been beefed up considerably. You see it is just good $$$ sense to put such a subplot in there, because that is what the general audience (not the hardcore audience) wants to see in a good film.

 

[Ged]

Originally posted by PRH:

He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film.

I think can understand what PJ means by this. It's not that there isn't a huge amount of action in TTT, perhaps there's as much or more so than in FOTR. The difference is that FOTR had to INTRODUCE everything, with the history, the background, the main characters etc. Some purists believe that this wasn't done very well. Okay, but for non-readers to make sense of everything it all had to be done.

Although TTT will have to stand on its own two feet it doesn't have this problem. Consequently, if it is just a continual sequence of action events it would seem a bit thin, a bit "sequelly" in fact.

As a film maker who DOES know his stuff, PJ realises the twists and turns and subtle changes he is going to have to make to ensure people come out of the TTT still excited for the ROTK.

 

[Ged]

VOK said:
I think the more serious problem is the lack of Frodo/Sam material in RotK. After all there's only 3 chapters vs many more for Aragorn/Merry/Pip etc.

Maybe that's why PJ is saving Shelob to ROTK.

(Admit haven't read whole thread, so apologies if you have already made this point.)

 

[Legolam]

I'm gonna be so disappointed if they move Shelob to ROTK. I was REALLY looking forward to leaving the cinema at the end of TTT with all my non-LOTR-loving friends in floods of tears because they think Frodo's dead (having read all the "Frodo lives" T-shirts etc). I could have then wound them up about it for a whole year.

As it is, they're going to have another lame ending to a film, just like FOTR, when no-one had a clue if it was finished or what the hell just happened. It would be great to leave everyone on a cliffhanger.

 

[ReadWryt]

, if it is just a continual sequence of action events it would seem a bit thin, a bit "sequelly" in fact.

Doesn't this almost describe the FIRST movie?

He said that TTT in general is not long enough to provide material for a whole film. Consequently, he says that he, Fran, and Phillipa wrote additional scenes expanding upon the Frodo, Sam, Gollum triangle, and that Faramir will also have an increased role in the film. No further explanation than that, tho.

Shelob will not make an appearance until ROTK, but he says the Ents are "awesome" and that we will get to see them storm Isengard in TTT, rather than hear about it after the fact.

Wait, TTT is not long enough so lets cut out Shelob and insert stuff that wasn't in the book. This makes great sense...I'm STILL scratching my head over this.

You could say that maybe Arwen shouldn't have been a main character in the first film then. I'm sorry, but this isn't the dark ages, mainstream movie audiences are expecting some substantial female presence in the films that they pay money to see, and that is exactly what PJ has provided.

Maybe he should have thought about this 4 years ago when he was promising everyone that he would "...not be making any major changes in the characters...", or that he was "...making the films in the spirit of Tolkien's writings..."...as for the statement that this isn't the dark ages, I guess that the dark ages ended with "Saving Private Ryan" because that had not one Female lead character...no WONDER it did so poorly at the box office, along with Appocolypse Now, Laurence of Arabia, Hunt for Red October and U 571...All must have had their horrid box office failures due to their being made in the "Dark Ages" when there were few if any women in films...

 

[Thorin]

Yes, and don't forget "Twelve Angry Men", "Con Air", and the newly released "Black Hawk Down". All movies from the dark ages that have had critics and movie-goers alike ranting and raving against the fact that there were no, if any, female roles....I knew when I saw the quick blurb on the newspaper advertisement for "Black Hawk Down": "One of the best movies of the year! Except it could have been a better movie with a strong female lead!"...that the public knew exactly what it liked!!!

 

[greypilgrim]

If you watch the 1978 cartoon Lord of the Rings (Bakshi), and then watch the 2001 movie (Jackson), you can tell who was the Tolkien fan.

P.J. admitted that he didn't read the books until he went to make the movie. He took scenes from the book that were climactic (flight to the ford) and COMPLETELY ALTERED THEM. that's just plain wrong.

At least there is a cartoon to watch and be happy with. If I had the money, I'd help Bakshi make a sequel to that cartoon, it would be more "in the spirit of Tolkien" than what we have today.

As for Shelob, it's cool if she's out until ROTK, because I think that the next movie will be mostly showing events aside from Frodo and Samwise. Probably ending their part of the story sometime before they even enter Mordor, maybe like the end of FOTR, them looking across the Emyn Muil, except they will be looking at the Tower of Cirith Ungol, from maybe the Cross Roads.

Peter Jackson just wanted to film his home country, and the story was secondary in his mind, I think. Otherwise , he would have kept it more real, and he is a fan of New Zealand, not Tolkien.

 

[ReadWryt]

"The Lord Of The Rings is big but it's such a wonderful property that it's worth spending five years of your life to do," said Jackson, talking at the International Festival of Fantasy Films in Brussels. "If it was anything other than Lord Of The Rings, I probably wouldn't do it, but it is such an amazing story and an amazing book that it's an honour and a privilege really.

"But I wasn't one of those total Lord Of The Rings aficionados. I read it when I was 18 and I didn't read it again until the whole idea of doing the film came up, 17 years later.

As for the Bakshi, I would rather see an Animated version then watch a bunch of poorly Rotoscoped actors myself, but that's just my taste...

 

[Ged]

I find it absolutely incredible that you guys can sit in this thread defending Bakshi's appalling version of (part of) LoTR.

My children watched it last week and even they were incredulous at how poorly it caught the mood of the book. And when you talk (ad nauseum) about the missings bits in PJ's film, how about the missing bits in Bakshi's treatment. Like Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas NOT meeting Eomer and the Riders of Rohan, like Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard and then completely dissapearing!

As I said before, you guys must have seen the cartoon version in your childhood. Well, I saw Scooby Doo in my childhood.