DBWI: Peter Jackson Directed the Lord of the Rings Trilogy

TRH

I'm not much of a moviegoer, so my knowledge of PJ's work is limited. Uhh...we'd have heard the Wilhelm Scream every movie?
 

ColeMercury

Hmm, perhaps the battle scenes will be properly brutal with all the blood and guts and stuff up there on the screen?

By the way, when is the adaptation supposed to come out? 2002 or 2003, maybe, after the King Kong remake?
 

The Vulture

Banned
Probably not very good. Jackson probably would have brought in his usual stable of cast and crew, and the talent there tends to vary wildly. Specifically, I'm thinking of his second-unit director Tommy Wiseau, who is of questionable ability. Given that the second unit is typically responsible for action scenes and there is a number of those in the book, it'd suffer for it. Wiseau usually pulls double duty as an actor in Jackson's films as well (everyone remember him as Claudius in Jackson's Hamlet?) and I've never really been impressed by him in that field either.

Not to say Jackson himself is bad, it's just his subpar team that concerns me.
 
Kaiphranos

Kaiphranos

Donor
ColeMercury said:
Hmm, perhaps the battle scenes will be properly brutal with all the blood and guts and stuff up there on the screen?

By the way, when is the adaptation supposed to come out? 2002 or 2003, maybe, after the King Kong remake?
Click to expand...

Urgh, the King Kong remake. Does this mean all the LOTR movies are going to be four hours long?
 

Pellegrino

Sure he was green and inexperienced at the time, but he couldn't have done worse than Uwe Boll. At the very least he would have been somewhat faithful to the source material.
 
Cymraeg

Cymraeg

Pellegrino Shots said:
Sure he was green and inexperienced at the time, but he couldn't have done worse than Uwe Boll. At the very least he would have been somewhat faithful to the source material.
Click to expand...

I almost walked out of the first one after seeing what they did to Gollum. Gollum is meant to be a pitiful horrible creature. You're not supposed to think "Aww, lil Smeagol, a pat on the head and an uplifting song will set you right as rain", you're supposed to think "Yuck, where's my battleaxe". He's also not meant to be turned into a stuffed toy. Although I must admit I did have tremendous fun watching the dog dismember that thing.
 

Gyoza

Just because the Disney films didn't follow the books doesn't mean they were bad. I think they get a lot of undeserved criticism in the internet community.

Disney just did what they always do. They took a classic myth or fairy tale and only used it for inspiration. And this method works. Would the Little Mermaid really have been better if it had the original ending?

And it overlooks the fact that no-one could have done an accurate and faithful adaptation of the books. They're completely unfilmable as they are.
 

Anonymous01

ColeMercury said:
Hmm, perhaps the battle scenes will be properly brutal with all the blood and guts and stuff up there on the screen?

By the way, when is the adaptation supposed to come out? 2002 or 2003, maybe, after the King Kong remake?
Click to expand...

Yes, 2001 to 2003 seems to be a good time range for these movies.
 
unclepatrick

unclepatrick

Jackson would have cast someone other than Johny Depp as Aragorn. Tolkien did not write Aragorn as Comic Relief. Aragorn was meant to be a Heroic character.
 
SpanishSpy

SpanishSpy

Gyoza said:
Just because the Disney films didn't follow the books doesn't mean they were bad. I think they get a lot of undeserved criticism in the internet community.

Disney just did what they always do. They took a classic myth or fairy tale and only used it for inspiration. And this method works. Would the Little Mermaid really have been better if it had the original ending?

And it overlooks the fact that no-one could have done an accurate and faithful adaptation of the books. They're completely unfilmable as they are.
Click to expand...


Disney, unfortunately, dolls up the original stories considerably and removes all moral impact that the originals had. They should have renamed their movies when each one was in conception.
 

M79

Maybe Jackson would have made 3 movies. The books do not start at Rivendell and there is actually material after the coronation of Aragorn at Minas Tirith. Tossing all 3 books into a 2 hours movie is kinda like trying to explain One Hundred Years of Solitude in 5 minutes to a high school class, they get bored, you probably get frustrated, and a lot of the material worth mentioning just gets omitted.
 

Mike Stearns

M79 said:
Maybe Jackson would have made 3 movies. The books do not start at Rivendell and there is actually material after the coronation of Aragorn at Minas Tirith. Tossing all 3 books into a 2 hours movie is kinda like trying to explain One Hundred Years of Solitude in 5 minutes to a high school class, they get bored, you probably get frustrated, and a lot of the material worth mentioning just gets omitted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, that's what you get when you let Uwe Boll direct a Disney movie.

OOC: Yes, I went there. I created a TL where Uwe Boll directs LOTR for Disney. :p
 

Gyoza

As a theme park enthusiast I can't help but shudder at the thought of some company other than Disney making Lord of the Rings.

Tokyo Disney Sea was scheduled to launch in the same year as the first movie so in a "brilliant" bit of synergy one of the lands at Disney Sea is called Middle Earth. Obviously once the movies flopped this was a bit of an embarassment. But the Rivendell raft ride and Moria minecart ride are still absolutely amazing (as are all the Japanese girls in elf ears).

If Disney hadn't been able to use Oriental Land Company's money to develop those ride systems then they wouldn't have been able to bring them to the American parks as the Little Mermaid's Dangerous Journey and the Seven Dwarves Diamond Mine, two of the best family-friendly thrill rides ever created.

Disney hiring Peter Jackson to make the movies is an intriguing possibility though...
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Come on, this is ASB. If you want LOTR to look good, you simply have to invest like 100 million $ upwards. Hollywood wouldn't give that much cash to a maverick. Yes, I know Jackson is a cult director, but that's the problem: His fan community is too small, hence uninteresting for Hollywood bosses.
 

Richter von Manthofen

But to add it - LOTR going to Disney - thats yous wasting some good stuff on a glutton - what next? Star Wars sold to Disney? - it would be the only way to make Episode VII-IX worse than I-III.
 

mattep74

If someone else made the movie maybe we would get better battle scenes and not bad CGI that showed it wasnt real. The horses in the big attack wasnt even touching the ground and the flying dragons the dark men had was made in clay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top