What PJ got right

@Aethelwulf Preach! And plus, look how many people (myself included) that were able to be touched by the films and introduced to Middle-Earth. It had such broad-spectrum appeal and exploded onto mainstream culture in a way that could only help eventually bring more people to the books.

LaurelinBearsFruit said:

@Aethelwulf Preach! And plus, look how many people (myself included) that were able to be touched by the films and introduced to Middle-Earth. It had such broad-spectrum appeal and exploded onto mainstream culture in a way that could only help eventually bring more people to the books.

Click to expand...

Exactly! And as much as I hate it when people only watch the films and are too lazy to read the books, its often the only way they get to hear the story.

Deimos said:

OK...

Edit: Just got an email from the Trust... they said it was OK.
Since they are good with it, it's OK with you, right?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't help you with the copyright owners of "moment".
Maybe the Oxford English Dictionary? Webster's? Funk & Wagnalls? 😬

Another thing PJ got right was filming and capturing all the interviews, training sessions, adventures, pranks, construction projects, and other great moments on all the "behind the scenes" extra discs they included with the films. I have an edition of the trilogy that has like 20 hours of bonus material that are basically a crash-course in how to at least attempt to honor a beloved universe.

Olorgando said:

I'm afraid I can't help you with the copyright owners of "moment".
Maybe the Oxford English Dictionary? Webster's? Funk & Wagnalls? 😬

Click to expand...

Well, if I really wanted to get original permission, "moment" drives almost verbatim from the Latin "momentum" which in turns has its source (as does almost all western [non Asiatic] languages) in the proto Indo-European language.

LaurelinBearsFruit said:

I have an edition of the trilogy that has like 20 hours of bonus material that are basically a crash-course in how to at least attempt to honor a beloved universe.

Click to expand...

Those four-DVD Extended Edition boxes? I have those, as well as the cinematic versions.
The TH EEs grew to five DVDs, again I also have the cinematic versions. My wife and I watched the latter on our TV, and I later watched the EEs on my computer. The additional footage for the films was forgettable. And the "making of" part could almost be taken as a warning how not to go about filming, as PJ basically confessed. With him jumping in as director after Guillermo del Toro quit, and not having had a fraction of the preparation time that he'd had for LotR.

Deimos said:

Well, if I really wanted to get original permission, "moment" drives almost verbatim from the Latin "momentum" which in turns has its source (as does almost all western [non Asiatic] languages) in the proto Indo-European language.

Click to expand...

I summarize: looks like a clear case of copyright having expired centuries ago, so it looks like you're home free. 😏

Olorgando said:

Those four-DVD Extended Edition boxes? I have those, as well as the cinematic versions.
The TH EEs grew to five DVDs, again I also have the cinematic versions. My wife and I watched the latter on our TV, and I later watched the EEs on my computer. The additional footage for the films was forgettable. And the "making of" part could almost be taken as a warning how not to go about filming, as PJ basically confessed. With him jumping in as director after Guillermo del Toro quit, and not having had a fraction of the preparation time that he'd had for LotR.

Click to expand...

Yeah the DVD EE boxes. I prefer them to the Bluray editions, both because I don't really care that much about visual fidelity and also because of the amount of extra stuff included on that particular release.

I have only watched the Hobbit movies one time each, in theaters I believe, and I could go without watching them again. That whole production situation seemed like development hell.

LaurelinBearsFruit said:

I have only watched the Hobbit movies one time each, in theaters I believe, and I could go without watching them again. That whole production situation seemed like development hell.

Click to expand...

I like them if I consider them to not be part of anything to do with Middle Earth.

@Aethelwulf haha, so just take them as a generic fantasy tale? I suppose that could work, but even so the heavy-handedness of the special effects and the mostly flat performances didn't pull me in. Although, I found an edited version called The Hobbit: The Cardinal Cut where someone edited the Hobbit trilogy down to one 3-hour movie that supposedly is pretty accurate to the book.

I have not watched it yet, but I plan to at least check it out sometime.

LaurelinBearsFruit said:

... but even so the heavy-handedness of the special effects ...

Click to expand...

I vaguely remember Viggo Mortensen making a comment to the effect of CGI overkill in the TH trilogy.

Olorgando said:

And each film had something that I hadn't experienced in a cinema for ages - an intermission!

Click to expand...

I went to Fellowship of the Ring a few years back when they did re-runs during covid but we didn't have an intermission.
You're saying you had one back when they released though?

Nice analogy at the end there, first time I've read that.

CheriptheRipper said:

I went to Fellowship of the Ring a few years back when they did re-runs during covid but we didn't have an intermission.
You're saying you had one back when they released though?

Click to expand...

My wife and I most likely saw each film in January following its release, so Jans 2002, 2003 and 2004. Before the actual film starts, there were a bunch of trailers for films slated for appearance later in the year, and probably some commercials. This added to the theatrical versions' run time pushed the first two well over the 3-hour mark, and over 3½ hours for RotK. They do sell soft drinks that you can take in to your seat, so the intermissions were necessary. 😬

Olorgando said:

My wife and I most likely saw each film in January following its release, so Jans 2002, 2003 and 2004. Before the actual film starts, there were a bunch of trailers for films slated for appearance later in the year, and probably some commercials. This added to the theatrical versions' run time pushed the first two well over the 3-hour mark, and over 3½ hours for RotK. They do sell soft drinks that you can take in to your seat, so the intermissions were necessary. 😬

Click to expand...

I saw ROtK with my brother and Grandpa when it released in '03, but I was pretty young so I don't remember whether we had an intermission or not. I mostly remember being freaked out by how they made Bilbo look at the end haha

Halasían said:

What did PJ do well in his Lord of the Rings project? He got a lot of the scenery right as far as my mind's eye is concerned.

Click to expand...

So this is the biggest issue I encounter when dealing with LOTR movie fans.

Explain me, How PJ is responsible for scenery? He is director, right? He is not a camera man, he is not doing a make up... nothing really to contribute scenery, right?
If you want to find a person responsible for it, you google "Director of photography for LOTR movies", and you will find me the man.

I beg you all to apologies my tone, but I am sick that PJ gets credits for all the hard working man in WETA studio.

This is just not right.

d4rk3lf said:

So this is the biggest issue I encounter when dealing with LOTR movie fans.

Explain me, How PJ is responsible for scenery? He is director, right? He is not a camera man, he is not doing a make up... nothing really to contribute scenery, right?
If you want to find a person responsible for it, you google "Director of photography for LOTR movies", and you will find me the man.

I beg you all to apologies my tone, but I am sick that PJ gets credits for all the hard working man in WETA studio.

This is just not right.

Click to expand...

I'm not really a movie fan; I was simply noting what I thought was done well enough for my liking per the thread title. Since this bothers you so much, YOU goggle it and tell us then which name out of the credits is responsible for each particular scene. Me, I'll update my references to 'PJ Walsh & Co.' to throw the net a little bit wider than the 'PJ' umbrella.
🤣

Ca

Halasían said:

Since this bothers you so much, YOU goggle it and tell us then which name out of the credits is responsible for each particular scene.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure.. but I am not googling you to prove you anything..
LOL. the whole point of the thread is about "What PJ got it right".. and I feel is somewhat offending.
What HE get right?

Hmmm.. something.. but,

It's not Him.. it's army of people working their best to create some amazing scenes.
Do they not deserve credits?
Whatever Peter personally brought into the movies I feel it was a disaster.

d4rk3lf said:

Ca

Yeah sure.. but I am not googling you to prove you anything..
LOL. the whole point of the thread is about "What PJ got it right".. and I feel is somewhat offending.
What HE get right?

Hmmm.. something.. but,

It's not Him.. it's army of people working their best to create some amazing scenes.
Do they not deserve credits?
Whatever Peter personally brought into the movies I feel it was a disaster.

Click to expand...

It's accurate to say that PJ got it right (or wrong) even if he didn't personally make the armour or the big-atures etc, because, as Director he had the final say so** if something was going to be filmed.
For example, it doesn't matter how much effort the sculptor put into making Orthanc, if PJ thought it looked like a column of black Legos, he could say "No, not good enough...go back and try again."
Same with a screen play... he can reject it or demand a rewrite (partial or total).

There's an account of the many takes of the Balrog breaking into flame on the bridge, because PJ was not satisfied that the flames shooting out of the Balrog's "hide" looked realistic. Yet I'm sure the people making the balrog were very talented and PJ himself could not have "made a Balrog" to save his life.
And I imagine redoing the pyrotechniques for that sequence over and over was not cheap. Yet he did numerous retakes on it because that is his prerogative as the Director.

** The only person who can trump the director is the producer.
The producer (or his studio) is footing the bill, so he (or anyone else putting up the money for the picture) can override the director.
Otherwise the Director is where the buck stops; final praise (or blame) for the success (or failure) of the picture is his.

Well... it was true in the old days "the captain went down with his ship."
However today, the mantra is "self preservation at all costs," and "the captain plays the blame game".

It would be far more accurate to say "The movies PJ directed" rather than even "PJs movies" much less "what PJ got right"... I doubt PJ actually funded them and owns the rights...(unless he did).

But I do think most are still in the habit of using "the biggest name" to identify a situation.

We do the same in our Gladiatorial sports of today, do we not? A baseball team wins, and the pitcher gets all the credit. A basketball team wins... a football team wins... any time there's a 'team', the chosen god of the team gets the credit.

Well, yes of course, it takes more than one person to make a movie.
But Ian's and Elijah's and Viggo's and Liv's acting (???) do not determine the overall success or failure LOTR
It is the Director who says "Action" and the Director who says "It's a wrap" (or words to that effect).
That is, nothing happens without the Director's leave.
He directs pacing, lighting, camera angles, actor placement, even actors' delivery of lines, if not the dialogue itself.

LOTR was produced by [companies] "New Line Cinema assisted by Wingnut Films" [per Wikipedia].
Wingnut Films (a NZ production company) is owned by Peter Jackson.
New Line put up most of the money (note the "assisted by Wingnut films").

It is the Studio that makes or loses money on a film, not the director (unless, as with PJ, the Director also happens to be putting up production capital).
If a movie dies at the Box office, the director still gets his contracted salary. But he may have trouble finding future work as a director, because studios may be leery of his competence.
It's not a case of picking someone to get the credit/blame (for appearance sake) or saying "the entire team is responsible for losing the game".
If the owners of New Line were unhappy with the any part of the making of the movie they fire PJ---not PJ AND Chris Lee, AND the guy making the big-atures AND Liv Tyler. (Oh, wait, firing Liv Tyler would have been a good idea from the get-go).
They might also fire the screen writers.
(Back in the Golden Age of Hollywood Studios had much more power over filmmaking, including the minutiae. )

So perhaps we should agree to disagree on this.