Cool News
Andy Serkis At The ArcLight In Hollywood And Details On Where You Can Chat With Him This Friday!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Our very own Mr. Beaks just interviewed Andy Serkis earlier today. It killed me to not be able to do it myself, but scheduling meant it was Beaks who got lucky enough to spend a half-hour talking with the man I most want to hear mentioned on the morning they mention the Academy Award nominations. Last Saturday night, a number of our readers saw Serkis make a special appearance at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, and they were good enough to send in a couple of reports to hold you over while Beaks transcribes...
Hey Harry -
Call me Drinky Crow. Long, long, long time reader, first time submitting. Thought someone would have sent pictures of this in by now, but in case you haven't heard, Andy Serkis introduced a showing of 'The Two Towers' at the Arclight theater in Hollywood on Saturday night, and stayed around for some Q&A afterward.
He is a slender and agile man, with facial hair that projects an aura akin to a carny pitchman. Put him in lifts and a horribly orange-striped suit, and you'd have one hell of a carnival barker. He also seemed very eager to talk about his perspective on the creation of Gollum. He sounds (quite rightfully) very proud of his work, and looked like he enjoyed having an audience that was really interested in the emotional dimension he brought to the lil' guy.
Much of what he said has been covered elsewhere, but hearing the effects process from the point of view of the performer was a whole new way to think about the digital magic that Weta has created. We all know about the cameras, shooting the scenes three times, the 25 cameras and the facial muscle mapping. Hearing him talk about shooting the scenes on set was fascinating. "I had to wear a white one-piece thing called a unitard or something. I'd never heard that word before but unitard was how I felt wearing it." Maybe you had to be there, but it was really funny.
He talked in depth about how he created the voice and the movements for Gollum, how his rock climbing kept him in shape for Gollum's acrobatics, and how Gollum's cravings for the ring were akin to heroin addiction, and that addiction was his way into the psyche of the character. Physically, he found his way into the role by watching his cat cough up a hairball. He said he was already physicalizing the role starting with a clenched up throat, and watching the involuntary gag reflex of his cat coughing up a hairball, he found the way that Gollum half-coughs his moniker. Hack, hurgh, hurgh, hurrum, hrghollum, hrghollum...
This got wild applause.
He also discussed the scene where Smeagol tells his Gollum half to go away. Apparently, this wasn't done during principal photography and was added after the editing for 'The Two Towers' was well underway. Andy profusely thanked Fran for handing him such a wonderful scene, and then showed us how he played it in one continuous take. He didn't shoot that sequence playing the two halves of Gollum separately, he ran through it all at once. Then, to prove it, while sitting in his chair, he did half of the scene, just shifting from side to side in his directors chair, and
it was incredible. It was Gollum... The audience was stunned to see Gollum simply appear out of thin air. I was close enough to see his face and the subtle nuances of body language, and the amazing shifts back and forth, and it was Gollum from on-screen. Peter Jackson's company of artists hands down, 100% nailed this wonderful performance. It was incredible to see it live, and more incredible to see how precisely Gollum's animators captured this. Incredible, there's no other word for it.
And of course, Mr. Serkis received a wild round of applause for this showstopper. In case he reads this, let me say it in print... Congratulations on a brilliantly done job, Mr. Serkis, your performance is one for the ages.
There were many more little details that slipped by. On the subject of awards, he neatly sidestepped the question. Each organization has their own guidelines and criteria for awards, and each has been interpreting the creation of Gollum with regard to their own discipline. What does this mean for the Oscars? That's a question he gently side-stepped with a wait-and-see approach. The most interesting detail he said on this subject slipped out very early in his Q&A. He mentioned that Screen Actor's Guild lawyers were trying to change the terminology for the effects people from 'motion-capture' to 'performance capture'. To anyone who knows SAG and their lawyers, that is a linguistic change that has some very interesting ramifications, not to mention possibly some very expensive ramifications for producers. For those unfamiliar with such things, here's the layman's version: Jar-Jar Dinks=Motion capture. Gollum=Performance capture.
Drinky CrowY’know, when we made the AICN TV pilot, I performed Moriarty as a real-time CGI character that interacted with Harry on a greenscreen stage, and just from trying to craft five or six minutes worth of a performance while strapped into a motion-capture suit, I can tell you that I have limitless respect for what Serkis and WETA accomplished. I can also tell you that no matter how much work WETA did, the soul that really ultimately makes Gollum real is the product of Serkis being so freakin’ amazing. You want to talk to him about all of this? Check this out...
Greetings all!
Got a question for the man behind Gollum? Andy Serkis will be chatting live on SciFi.com this Friday January 31st at 6pm PST!
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is in theaters everywhere on December 17th.
Enjoy!!Here’s one more take on the event last Saturday.
Hey Harry,
I'm not sure if anyone sent you information on the special screening of The Two Towers last night at the Archlight in LA. After the movie there was Q&A with Andy Serkis. Highlights included Andy doing the voice of Gollum in the split personality scene. Also, explaining he got some inspiration from listening to his cats cough up fur balls.
He mentioned that SAG was thinking of changing the name of Motion Capture to Performance Capture. This is to better reflect the acting skill that goes into what he did in the Two Towers. He also tackled the issue of if he should be recognized with award nominations for acting. He felt it should be at least considered, because his performance is what drove the creation of Gollum. He has put over 2 and half years of his life into it. But he did concede that there is a definate grey area in this matter and that the Academy does change with the times so, maybe there could be a new category in the future for this type of work. At one point they filmed an E True Hollywood Story spoof with Gollum acting like a spoiled star and taking calls from Jar Jar Binks. Hopefully this ends up on some version of the DVD. But the big news that came out was that they had filmed a scene that may or may not make The Return of The King, showing how Smeagol killed his brother Deagol to get the Ring. Can't wait to see that.
ElecamThanks, and I’m jealous of every single one of you who have had a chance to meet him face-to-face so far. Hurry up with your interview and your special surprise for the readers, Beaks. I can’t wait for both...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
If you do read the above comments Andy Serkis 2 points, I seen you in Manchester playing Othello and thought you were great as lago. Second point and more importantly please do a Q&A back home in the UK after a showing of TTT (Specifically Manchester) as them Yanks get fucking everything, ILM Conventions, the works. Lucky Gits!!!
-
Jan 29, 2003 8:17:10 AM CST
If you get to meet Serkis, here's what you need to do...
by rev_skarekroe
Tell him you think he did a lousy job, and raped the original Jewish legend of the Golem. When he acts like he doesn't know what you're talking about, spit in his face and call him an anti-Semitic Nazi. Then, when the securtiy guards come out to beat you up, just say you were only kidding. sk
-
Like him or not, Ahmed Best is just as deserving of the term "performance capture" as Serkis. Lucas directed him to use an unbelievably annoying voice, but don't blame it on Best. First of all, he IS a performance artist, Lucas selecting him after seeing "Stomp" in the theatre. Second, I think it's an insult to say that Best didn't put his heart and talent into his performance. While it wasn't nearly as great as Goll
-
He was completely keyframed by hand.
-
rev_skarekroe, what a wanker you are. Where did you come up with that bullshit about Gollum being Jewish? If it were true he would be fucked anyhow as Tolkien wrote Sauron and the gang as a metaphor for the Nazi's.....
-
I invite you to go to dictionary.com and look up the word "golem". Then I would like you to look up the word "joke". Then I would like you to look up the word "clue". Then I would like you to get one. And for the record, Sauron's forces were NOT metaphors for the nazis. You can look that up, too. sk
-
But I would also like you to look up the word "jackass" (definition 2). sk
-
Wrong knob-end. Sauron WAS a metaphor for the Nazi's, It's a well known fact here in the UK. Everyone in the Thirties knew they was a nightmare rising from the East.
-
Straight from Tolkien's mouth, in the foreword to "Fellowship of the Ring". Ahem. "The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest
parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had
yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story
would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster
had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some
cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the
war that began in 1939 or its sequals.
"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or
its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the
legend, then certainly the Ring would have bneen seized and used against
Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur
would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get
possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the
time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into
Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own
with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that
conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they
would not have survived even as slaves." At best, you can argue that Tolkien was subconsciously influenced by the events of WWII, but his book is hardly an allegory for the war itself. sk -
Ahmed Best went on location with his co-stars and performed each scene with them so they could get a feel of what the chracter would be doing. They then filmed the scene again without him. Then he went into the motion capture studio and recreated his performance in the motion capture suit. Serkis did it for gollum- so did Ahmed Best for Jar Jar
-
Dude, that's classic. I gotta use that somehow. sk
-
dude you're so wrong its filthy. JRRT never did that. He hated it when readers assumed he did so. He's come out and said it; its in all the literature of him. Check yo-self bee-atch.
-
Jan 29, 2003 1:55:01 PM CST
Best Supporting Actor, Best Visual Effects - Best Supporting Act
by much too tall
I think I was pretty clear in the subject line. :) -
Who could forget the silent movie "The Golem". Or the many golem types of D&D. Or the terrible rope and iron golems of Nethack (many are the characters that have died at the hands of an apostrophe). Or the giant metal statue from Jason & The Argonauts, did he count as a golem? None of them have anything to do with Gollum. That was an onomatopaeia related to his noisy swallowing. +++
From the Oxford English Dictionary: GOLEM ad. Yiddish goylem, f. Heb. g [{omac}] lem shapeless mass. In Jewish legend, a human figure made of clay, etc., and supernaturally brought to life; in extended use, an automaton, a robot.
1897 H. ILIOWIZI In Pale 171 The Baal-Shem smiled when he was told that the official version of the Golem's work proclaimed, that ?the accident was caused by a red bolt of lightning, which killed the people and destroyed the building?. 1925 H. SCHNEIDERMAN tr. Bloch's Golem 67 They formed out of clay the figure of a person,.. And the Golem lay before them. 1928 Funk's Stand. Dict., Golem , a homunculus or figure made to represent a man: said to have been made and endowed with life by Reb L -
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/383/383888p1.html
-
and when there is no one left gollum and Jar Jar will still be throwing buggers at each other.
-
I've seen "The Two Towers" four times, and after about viewing no. 2, it hit me that Serkis not only deserves the nomination, but the award. There is something so profound about his performance. It's not just the incredible body language, the way he walks across the Dead Marshes, the way he attacks Frodo and Sam at the film's beginning. And it's not just in the voice, either. It's in the way that he interacts with everyone else. Gollum EXISTS in the world on-screen as a three-dimensional being just as much as Frodo and Sam, or Faramir and Aragorn. Acting is, in the end, about energy and timing. Both of which are completely lacking from Ahmed Best's performance as Jar Jar Binks in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones. But Serkis has a strangle hold on these two things. He delivers a performance that transcends its technical wizardry, and for that, he deserves an Oscar.
-
But I have one for a father. And I did go to see TTT dressed in costume. Cloaks are very good for saving several seats at once. :) Anyway, I think Serkis deserves the nomination. I can't say whether or not he deserves the award, since I haven't seen the other movies with actors up for an Oscar. I was reading the TTT cinefex, and how Weta made gollum's expressions so lifelike. They sculpted any expression which could possibly be needed, then used Serkis as a guide to put them all together. Serkis' performance was amazing, but Weta's job of transmuting Serkis' acting to Gollum's acting deserves just as much recognition. Gollum's performance wouldn't have been possible without Serkis or Weta. ~*~ And oh, yes, Golems are cool. One story I remember was that a Rabbi sculpted a man from clay, then wrote G-d's true name on a piece of parchment, rolled it up, and put it into the Golem's belly button. The parchment is what brought the Golem to life, and when it was removed the Golem returned to a lifeless lump of clay.
-
Ah, the beloved Irony Free Zone that is Talkback. In any case, Serkis rocked, and since the push seems to be to proffer DDL in GONY for Best Actor rather than Best Supporting Actor, Serkis' major competitor (in my view) would be effectively out of the way. Also, just for your information, I am not a fat guy with a beard, though my Dad was a skinny guy with a moustache.
-
Jan 30, 2003 2:06:25 PM CST
DID they use any mocap for Jar Jar? Doubt it, and if they did,
by minderbinder
I'm curious - if they did, give us a link to something about it.
-
I definitely have a beard, although I'm not sure if 218 lbs. qualifies as "fat." I guess it depends on your height
-
Never mind the spoiler in the ROTK preview, what I DON'T want to hear is Sam urging "Mr. Frodo" to destroy the Ring, a la Elrond with Isildur.... ("DESTROY it, Mr. Frodo!") Must they parallel everything? Could they not PLEASE follow the source and keep Sam as a helpless, horrified, SILENT observer to the working out of fate, like the audience? And the "Mr." Frodo, at this late date...! Otherwise, everything sounds cool, but I have learned not to trust the previews. Whatever became of "He fears what you may become," etc., all of which would have added strength to Aragorn's character in TTT (and which I hope to see in the SEV). ***The good news is, amazon's movie listings were wrong, and TTT is still showing downtown. And my sister and I are going to see it tomorrow. #9! See you later, as she is probably trying to reach me now....
-
Question: why in Italian do we have Sam, Frodo, Merry - and Pipino? Not to mention Gandalf, Denethor, Faramir, Aragorn, Sauron (I particularly like "Bocca di Sauron"), but "Obromanto" (Shadowfax)? Why translate one name in five, and leave the rest. Why not Gandolfo? Anyway, it's a multi-ethnic evening. Just returned from a nice Italian dinner and a bottle of Sangiovese... and someone is playing bagpipes in the street outside my window. And I am going to TTT again tomorrow.
-
I'm 'proportionately' built, though I do have a mean set of 'chops'. Brian Potter, others have addressed your ignorance quite comprehensively so I'll just add this, bwahahaha. Why don't you read the introduction by Tolkein himself, in the LOTR? I'm sure you'll find it enlightening and might set a few of you people who lived with him in the 'Thirties' straight. Cheers.
-
But, I saw this article on TORN and find it rather interesting. http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/. Sorry Elanor, I don't mean to upset you, but this article does glaringly point out some of the discrepancies in the Two Towers movie. Cheers.
-
http://home.online.no/~gremmem/ engrish_ttt_captions/index.htm (remember to close the space up in front of "engrish")
-
My neighbors could probably hear me choking with laughter. That was a lung-clearer, and no mistake. And it hasn't even opened in Japan yet!
-
And I heard the nerve to complain about the dialogue in TTT... Cheers.
-
Is anybody here? Did we move TBs and someone forgot to tell me? Well, I say "forgot"...
-
Mr. Mortsleam. Gee, sounds like a name that should have its own Beatles song. Actually, this TB is awfully qwuiet. But you fear too much. There will be a Hobbit film somewhere along the line, never you fear. Even if PJ doesn't make it. Somebody owns the rights. Actually, I've just ordered "The Hobbit" and "The Return of the King" on divida, and am wondering exactly how psychologically scarred I'm going to end up being.
-
And I kept checking all day yesterday, hoping someone had a conversation going. As far as I know, this is it. Could use a good spoiler to sink my teeth into... or at least some more bad translations! (And I'm still snarling about Sam urging Frodo to destroy the Ring at Mt. Doom and calling him "Mr." - which he certainly dropped while hurling himself at Frodo during the Nazgul incident!)
-
This can
-
Well, let's just say it's becoming ever more evident that when I get my hands on the theatrical DVD, it's going to be hobbits all the way.... Though I don't understand quite where the Tolkien purist over on TORN is coming from when he complains about the orcs not being scary enough, or the CGI not good enough (this from a professor of rare books!), or the acting not good enough, or that the adaptations aren't even any good as films. (!!!!!!) You have to be really sour to come up with that one.... However, I do think he's right that the filmmakers try to have it both ways, in sometimes insisting that the films stand alone, even going AGAINST the book, and other times requiring that we fill in information from the book. But I completely agree with him in disliking Aragorn's fall off the cliff and that final, ridiculous downhill charge into pikes (which is only the last and worst of too many charges onto pikes or -in Gimli's case - leaping ONTO pikes from above) with Aragorn and Gandalf grinning away at each other while every orc on the causeway conveniently stops fighting to give them a moment. Forget Elves at Helm's Deep - away with the pikes! They are not a siege weapon. They are useless on ladders. What they are terrifically good at is stopping charges, so what do our heroes do, every time? Charge straight onto the pikes! (And with all those Elvish archers....) The trouble is, the entire battle of Helm's Deep is nonsensical militarily; it just looks cool, so everyone raves about it. Aragorn telling ELVES when to "fire"...! Legolas explaining the weak points in armor...! My sister (on her #3) leaned over and said, "As king, Theoden is really a waste of space." I don't entirely agree, given that it's only his taking them to Helm's Deep that saves them from the slaughter that would have ensued if they'd followed Gandalf's and Aragorn's urging to just go out and fight. On the other hand, he's not exactly brim-full of leadership, though he does dress beautifully and recite poetry well. (Theoden as Richard II?) As for the good parts, we agreed that the Merry and Pippin "Shire" scene is the best scene not involving Frodo or Gollum, all of which were wonderful (and Gollum could not be more riveting); the destruction of Isengard is monumentally wonderful; and every time Faramir showed up and persisted in his mistreatment of the Ringbearer, we narrowed our eyes at each other and mouthed "bastard!" - which made us feel better. Anyway, back to work.
-
The TB you're looking for is #14143.
-
Fortunately, I have never seen either "The Hobbit" or ROTK, and think I prefer it that way. Alice, from what I've heard, you may need a brain-wipe. I flinch at just the COVERS. Then again, I didn't entirely hate the Bakshi version when it first came out(after all, it was all we had), though I have resisted any urge to revisit it.
-
Just check out the SW vs. LOTR story in the Onion (www.onion.). Now that is quite amusing in a strangely near the knuckle kind of a way. Oh, and thanks for the kindly meant warnings about the animated ROTK. I've already been told to keep my ears peeled for Sam saying, "Oh God!". Still, if they manage to rape Samwise's character worse than Bakshi did, I'll be very much surprised.
-
http://theonion.com/onion3904/ nations_love_affair.html (Close up the space before "nations") Thank you for your attention.
-
All TBs are hosed! How am I meant to cause offence to both God and Man if no-one can read my inflammatory copy? Eh? Eh?
-
Didn't it seem as if last year a new one was created every time FOTR was nominated for ANY award, anywhere? So bring them on.... And why is everything hosed, almost all the time? ***Meanwhile, I am expecting the just-released DVD of the combined "Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers" (the Richard Lester version), which got it right. And had the most beautiful costumes ever seen prior to LOTR.
-
Should the Uruks even be a problem? Let's say his firing rate is three arrows per minute, with extreme accuracy (and actually, we've seen him fire them off at a much faster rate than that), and there are 300 Elves at Helm's Deep (that number sticks in my mind; if it's wrong, somebody correct me) - or let's say, 100 Elves to be conservative - and they are all firing three arrows a minute and hitting their targets.... That's 300 Uruks a minute, not counting whoever the Rohirrim are hitting in their random "volley" - or a decimation of the Uruk ranks within the first five minutes of battle, plus enough heaped bodies on the field to prevent them ever getting through with the explosives. Seems to me the only limitation would be lack of arrows, so maybe it was traveling too light that almost did them in. And ALSO, once the wall had been breached, it was really folly to keep charging the breach, instead of immediately withdrawing to the upper walls and firing DOWN into the courtyard. Especially when the defenders are archers vs. pikes!
-
Thanks for the week off, morG. Natch, the first major snow of the year comes right when I return from the balmy south. It was worth it though
-
Look, morGoth
-
Have we found each other only to drift off again? Will the fate of the poor SW fans happen to us as well? How many questions can I fit in consecutively? Ah, I see Dot
-
Surely this deserves a new talkback.
-
Hurrah! It sounds like my sister is interested in driving up to Los Angeles to see the costume exhibit again this year. As some of you may recall, we went to see it last year, when it included Galadriel's gown and Sauron's armor (which, trust me, is even more awesomely intimidating in the flesh - or in the spike) as well as Gandalf's costume and Frodo's party duds (with the beautiful brocade vest). I'm hoping this year for Theoden's brocaded velvets and Eomer's armor, though they have to take what they're given, we learned last time, and don't get a choice. I realize it's all about how it looks on screen, but it's still hard not to compare the tacky taffetas and paper-mache breastplates of the other films with the hand-sewn, beaded and hammered-metal perfection of Ngila's constructions. Wish they'd throw in a few Elvish banners, while they are at it.
-
I have nothing to contribute, except that I loved that McKellan quote on the Empire awards site about ROTK being very, very good. Unfortunately I can't play Petey Jackson's acceptance speech at work. Boo!
-
Though not until February 21. The plan is to drive to L.A. and see the exhibit, hang out a bit at Book Soup and have lunch at Mirabella's (just around the corner on Sunset - it has the most amazing angel hair pasta, which conveniently is also the least expensive thing on the menu) and generally amuse ourselves. Neither of us is crazy about L.A., but that one little area has become our home away from home, if we have reason to be there. At various times (thanks to my sister's hotel connections) we've stayed at the Bel-Air (our favorite, but now prohibitively expensive, even for her - it has discreet cottages, an herb garden and a swan pond), the Chateau Marmont, and the St. James, which is now called something else but is still an Art Deco jewel. (I'm not expecting that level of accommodations this trip.) The next day we're driving to Vegas, where my sister has connections with the Venetian. I could have skipped Vegas - probably for the rest of my life, at this point, we've stayed there so often -but since she's providing the wheels AND the hotels, I'm willing to ride along. Fortunately, I like desert scenery, and it's not summer. My real agenda is an hour with all that gold embroidery. Some Easterling armor would be nice. But as they told us last year, they have to taken what they're given.
-
What I was going to say was, "does this mean you and I are now an item now Runelord?" It would be reasonable to expect some 'reward' for the all expenses paid trip to Cirith Ungol, (snigger, snigger...) I must warn you though, these 24 inch biceps and 2% body fat don't come easily you know, much like my theories... I require an enormous amount of training time in the gym, to achieve this level of sculpture. That and my nightly doorman duties at 'the' Club leave me preciouss little time to devote to anyone else though. I'm also not the best conversationalist either, as you might know from that movie I am moderately famous for, it took me roughly 24 minutes to actually say something... On the plus side though, I'm simply superb at carrying shopping bags, tree trunks or whatever. I magnificently fill out sleeve- less T shirts and have quite a fondness for (almost) skin tight shorts... My hobbies including sunning myself, bicep curls, having people admire me for long periods of time and standing around looking good... Oh and in relation to TTT, I don't think pikes are particularly effective weapons for attacking a fortress either. You'd think the Uruks might have brought a large proportion of archers to keep the defenders heads down whilst attacking those walls, given their massive numerical superiority? Well I would anyway, perhaps that's another reason they lost, besides the fact that they were the bad guys... Cheers.
-
I saw TTT again, and am beginning to think, in my heretical way, that I prefer it to FOTR. No, seriously. Listen. I knocked over my bag, and kept waiting for a slow bit to sort it out, but I kept getting distracted my the movie. Additionally, there is a lot less hobbitry, but the hobbitry that we do get is, by and large, of a superior quality. All of my Frodo issues from the last movie appear to be fixed, and frankly I'm much more of a sucker for lost Caravaggio saints in peril than the cringeing cowardice we got at Weathertop or the nasty makeup and lack of dialogue at the Ford. Additionally, everytime I watch it, there is something new to see in either Helm's Deep or the destruction of Isengard. I think I love it a lot. I think I may love it more than TTT. That is all.
-
Obviously. And Aragorn and co. are actually quite engaging too, though I miss Gandalf the Grey.
-
there was an old man * wearing blue, whose lim'ricks all * looked like haiku. he *** said with a laugh, i * cut them in half--the pay is * much better for two
-
Feb 07, 2003 12:03:37 PM CST
Holy frittatas, I've eaten omelets less scrambled than this blas
by pallando blue
...But looks like it's AICN-wide, so no point in fighting it. Well, maybe one brief effort: UNHOSE! UNHOSE! UNHOSE! ...amything? No? Feh. *** As for pikes at HD, can't lay that entirely at the feet of a "Weta committee" of design, except so far as they followed through with Alan Lee's original artwork. Yep! I don't know if these were all in the special LOTR anniversary edition he illustrated (probably), but there's a beautiful Lee plate on the cover jacket of each History of LOTR hardbound. The cover of "The War Of The Ring" is his take on HD, and yep, just like the base of Orthanc, PJ, Taylor et al. pretty much just extended that vision into a full-scale visual concept. It could be a still lifted right from the movie, almost. And, yeppers again, Lee had the baddies plied in pikes, right up against the Wall and pouring through the breach with 'em. It's a helluva watercolor! But, as said, not entirely militarily logical. Perhaps chalk it up to the arrogance of Isengard, as Taylor sez often. *** As far as dodging the wall-o'-pikes in the final cavalry charge, y'all did notice that the sun itself bursts over the rise right before the armies clash? (On first and maybe even still the second viewing I just took it as "Gandalf's Blazing White Aura" or somesuch, seeing as it bursts right over his shoulder and, well, I could hardly breathe much less process coherent thought that first day.) The Uruks are literally blinded and waver, etc., allowing the ugly whiteskins to barrel through their ranks. Yeah, I know, still incredibly far-fetched that the horse phalanx gets through un-piked, but, heck, not much more far-fetched than a lot of the rest of the tale. *** Hmm, I've put on a little weight since last I wore this ridiculous cheerleading outfit... ;-)
-
Hath I unhoseth thith talkback..?
-
While I'm rah-rah-ing (though it appears Alice has donned the pleated skirt and "PJ"-emblazoned snug half-sweater along with me), just sayin I'm a bit nonplussed at the Theoden-knockin' I been readin'. Worthless? Dumb even? Space-taking? Foolhardy and cocksure? Wha huh? Until the what-the-hell-was-THAT!? breaching, all the Uruks had was a battering ram and ladders, and a finite number of both. The goons are tough, but not all that skilled. Outfight em on the ramparts as they scale, systematically take out their means of ascension, keep the keep's doors reinforced, and, yeah, eventually that's a pretty damn unassailable fortress. I could easily see how Theoden was unimpressed. No siege towers? Catapults? Keep the Rohan losses to a minimum and darn tootin' the Uruks would break upon the wall like water onto rock. The baddies' choice to move in speed rather than with heavy engines of war was, seemingly, a strategic error. (Oh but just you wait til Sauron gets his war machine truckin' HOO BOY I BETCHA) Made sense to me, I was smirking right along with Theoden, despite knowing what was coming. Of course, when the blasting fires blast ALL bets were off. Then it was a mad scramble to survive as the hordes suddenly had massive access to slaughter face to face--their bread and butter. Also, when it hit the fan Theoden was damn quick to get to the gates himself, joining the front line, piking a Uruk for good measure, even with his own freshly piked shoulder. Theoden was GREAT! He may have despaired briefly toward the end, but the look on his face when Aragorn says "Ride out with me".... The stuff of Kings, baby. He didn't have a poor strategy, he had poor intelligence-gathering and lesser weapons technology. And holy heckfire did he do the best with what he had. In my opinion. YAAAAYY! [two cartwheels and a handspring, sticks the landing] Awright! Yeah! Go PJ! Wheeeee! ;)
-
Feb 07, 2003 1:58:06 PM CST
Don't tell me we can get an actual conversation going again?
by daughter of time
Pallandro, all the bright light in the world is not going to make me think the horses wouldn't be dog food after that downhill charge. Nine times I've watched it, and nine out of ten pikes aimed right at their chests; I don't care how blinded and disoriented the orcs are. Well, you know, I love the overall design, but there are a few times I wish they hadn't treated Lee and Howe with more respect than Tolkien. (We can toss Aragorn over a cliff, but we can't get rid of the pikes... that's in the ILLUSTRATIONS.) ***Has anyone else noticed that Frodo doesn't have a single line of dialogue in the whole scene with the conies? He just reacts beautifully.... (And reaction shots are always considered the real test of an actor.) Do wish there'd been a transition scene showing him reaching that state of exhaustion, but it sounds as if it may be in the SEV, if they re-insert Sam being anxious about feeding him and seeing him shining faintly. Which leads me to another point: I really don't think that in the book Frodo's trek to Mordor was all about his "disintegration." In fact, he not only held together well, despite ongoing physical and mental torture, but was able to reassert his self-hood after each flare-up (none of which were as extreme as what we have already seen in the film, and he's not even inside Mordor). My take was that he was GROWING in spiritual strength (as witness what Sam sees in the struggle with Gollum on the slopes) even as the Ring wore him down mentally and physically; it was only able to flip him at the very Crack of Doom, because that was the point where the Ring would have overcome anyone, Maiar included. I wonder how much Frodo himself considered the impossibility of his achieving the Quest for this very reason, or if he was too intent doggedly moving forward on the one thing he knew he could do: keep putting one foot in front of the other, and finally crawling.... I could go either way with that: yes, because of his obviously intelligence and introspection (it would surely have occurred to him) or no, because the Ring and physical and mental struggle are completely occupying his mind.
-
Pallando, somewhere in this hopelessly hosed talkback, or maybe it was its equally hosed predecessor, I posted much of what you're saying about Theoden - especially in response to people criticizing his "Is this all you have?" line. No, HE was right, and Gandalf and Aragorn were wrong about riding out to meet them. His instincts were better than their (lack of) intelligence. And I really liked his slap-down of Aragorn for talking defeat in front of the troops. Without the unforeseen devilry, things should have been under control. But then the balance does seem to shift - his "for death and glory!" sounds like a death-wish, corrected by Aragorn's "for Rohan!" Though, again, Theoden was more realistic. A cavalry charge of nine horses, through a door onto a narrow causeway, slick with orc-blood....
-
And in the oddest places... ;) *** Now then, I shall jump track once again and NOW defend the INdefensible: I come not to bury Arthur Rankin Jr. and Jules Bass... nor to praise them, really, but just gotta confess once again my soft spot for 'em. There WERE after all this 9-year-old's gateway into Tolkien, and as ridiculous as it seems now to try to reduce LOTR into an animated children's movie, for a children's movie (from a child's point of view) both of em were pretty darn cool. Adaptation horrors are ONLY a problem if you know (and love) the source material, and children's tastes are suspect in general. ;) Think of them like a Classic Comix version of Moby Dick--and who can really hate those? A ludicrous concept for the adult, but a ripping good tale told the kid. And entirely well-intended. The worst parts of ROTK especially, now just make me chuckle and laugh instead of scream "RAPE!" And I always, every time, sing along--especially to "Where There's A Whip There's A Way"! (What a great guitar hook! ;D Cover bands, get to work NOW). Yeah, I gotta heavy scrim of Nostalgia over my eyes for them Rankin/Bass constructions. But there are, also, a handful things they did very right. Number One being John Huston as Gandalf. Good grief that's aces. The mattes, especially of Minas Tirith, are damn good, I still think. The major events of Pellenor Fields play out mostly like the book, albeit hihgly compressed, and Casey Kasem (snigger!) actually belts out some credible fury as Merry! And of course, the doings at Mt. Doom go just as they should, which was all pretty damn tense and shocking for a kid. And, a personal fave, there's just something goofy-wonderful about Pippin warning Gandalf about Denethor, "He's gone looney I tell ya!" ;^) *** Okay, so, the Original Sin of the Rankin/Bass productions were converting the quite-mature Tolkien material into children's entertainment. ("The Hobbit" I have even less problems with. Mostly the songs, and some design stuff--Elrond's sparkly halo! Haw!) But once that's been accepted as done, purely AS children's entertainment (speaking from this child's memory) they kicked arse. As a grown-up, well, sure I much prefer Moby Dick the novel, and Bradbury and Huston didn't do too bad with their movie adaptation. But I dug the Classic Comix back then too much to hate em now. :) *** So Alice, my suggestion would be, to have as fun a time as possible with your new DVDs, make a big bowl of popcorn, chill a double-magnum of cheap red, huff a little airplane glue, hit Play and ENJOY! :)
-
Feb 07, 2003 3:02:20 PM CST
Well, RATS to the whole Unhosed effort. I am now Unhoped.
by pallando blue
One last non-sequiturical foray, then if there's time left later in the day I'll do a proper scan of this Cuisinart of a Tailend... *** Hey "mortsleam" [heh heh heh] guess what's inexplicably entered rotation on HBO this past week? ... [black screen] Shagrat (V.O.): "Okay, that's good enough. Throw em the clothes." [fade in on an uncomfortable Sam and Frodo wearing loud T-shirts and shorts] Shagrat and Gorbag together: "Hahahahaha!" Shagrat: "You two look like.. like... Gorbag, what do they look like?" Gorbag: "...Orcs. [Shagrat laughs again] They look like a couple of Orcs." Sam: "Ha ha, very funny. They're your clothes, motherfucker." *** And for old time's sake: At Isengard Gimli told Bregelad, * "I'm wond'rin' 'bout pretty-boy Legolas. * Though he's got his pick * Of any Middle-earth chick, * I've never once known him to peg a lass..."
-
"And, a personal fave, there's just something goofy-wonderful about Pippin warning Gandalf about Denethor, "He's gone looney I tell ya!" ;^)" You know, you should have seen the look on my face when I read this. You would have enjoyed it. It was priceless. The dividas haven't arrived yet, but I wait with anticipation. And a fair measure of astonishment.
-
But I'm sticking with FOTR as #1. However, as you say, Frodo scuttling backward is a negative, as is oozing Ringbearer being carried to the Ford. I was really quite relieved to find out that was a doll, and that Elijah didn't have to be subjected to the make-up. Not a freeze-frame moment, certainly, even if I did like the Nazgul gauntlet stretching out for him.... And there's a certain continuity issue, since he looked clean if miserable gasping on the river bank. No, regarding TTT, hobbits are moving forward nicely, and you are quite right about martyred Caravaggio Frodo trumping just about everything, which is really what I'm paying my admission for at this point... (And I would like to point out that Frodo's most perfect Caravaggio freeze-frame, as captured in the TTT trailer, turned out to be the moment when he looks up at Faramir after Gollum's capture). But my mind will not be at ease until I know they will not have Sam co-opt all of Frodo's heroism with Shelob. After all, Frodo is the one who displays raw courage in turning and going up to her with drawn sword when they COULD have run (even if it would have been futile - as futile as scuttering backward at Weathertop). AND he sets the Phial blazing. And he whacks away at the web like nobody's business. Sam's courage is more instinctive - Tolkien's analogy is a small beast defending its fallen mate; he just goes NUTS. Which I want to see. I want to see them both, as they should be. Fortunately, the calendar gives me hope.
-
I am almost becoming persuaded that they might be worth a giggle, for their sheer awfulness. ("He's gone looney!"?!!!!)
-
Feb 07, 2003 9:05:34 PM CST
"Something nearly slipped, you say? Something HAS slipped"My wis
by orson w
I have read that PJ may make the running time of ROTK as long as four hours. I believe this would be a serious mistake. If PJ has shown us anything with the SEV of FOTR, it is that his story-telling is much more powerful when it is concise and economical. I think that a four-hour movie would be bloated and ineffective. On behalf of the small minority of fans who believe that PJ seriously dropped the ball with TTT, I would like to suggest a simple solution to ensuring that ROTK is up to the same standard as FOTR..........I strongly urge PJ, Fran and Philippa to take a minimum six-month break right now. That's right - six months during which they FORGET LOTR COMPLETELY. Then they can come back and look at these movies with a fresh eye. You see, I have been trying to work out why there has been (to me) such a noticeable drop in QUALITY in TTT. I mean, almost every scene in FOTR (the theatrical cut) is perfectly judged and executed, but in TTT, there are too many moments that come off as awkward, poorly written, heavy-handed, off-target or just plain dumb. (Personally I find that I have lost all respect for the character of Sam and shudder to think what he may get up to in ROTK). But the feeling I get from TTT is that there IS a great movie in there - but it has been stifled by a series of poor judgements in the editing room. And I think this is due to exhaustion on the part of the filmmakers. Apparently it was a huge struggle to get TTT ready in time for release. And this was made even more dificult by the five weeks lost to the Oscar campaign - PJ himself has said that those five lost weeks really hurt the post-production and editing of TTT. And so my dream is that PJ & Co will take some distance from the franchise and come back to it when they're ready to create the magic again. I, for one, am willing to wait as long as it takes. Then, and only then, will PJ be able to do justice to his skills as a filmmaker and give us a 3-hour cut of ROTK that will really move us. And in addition, I would love if he re-cut TTT, because I'm convinced that it is possible to have a much better (and probably SHORTER) cut of this movie. And there I rest my case. ***** As regards the animated versions, I have only ever seen the Bakshi film, in which I find much to admire. It baffles me as to why people dislike it so much. PJ himself has (wisely) lifted some ideas from it for his own adaptations, so why pour scorn on it? Bakshi did a very honest job of trying to adapt a very difficult book - and don't forget he had a small budget and no computer graphics. From a purist point of view (which I am not), he sticks extremely closely to the books - probably too closely. Aragorn, for example, is as near to the book version as you could want (silly costume aside), and ther is no Arwen subplot. I feel that many of Bakshi's instincts were correct and occasionally superior to PJ's: having seen PJ's TTT, I am a convert to the idea of adapting LOTR as TWO movies instead of three. I also prefer Bakshi's staging of Helm's Deep to PJ's - it is simpler, clearer and more dramatic. Yes, I am ignoring the silly costumes and the lack of special effects and the fact that the budget ran out - but in terms of staging and storyboarding, for me Bakshi's siege beats PJ's hands down. I would also say that Bakshi's Nazgul are a lot creepier than PJ's: all twisted and crippled and disturbing. The moment where the witchking first says, "Come back: to Mordor we will take you," is extremely chilling. His voice is just dripping with evil - it sounds like it's coming from the bottom of a damp, decaying pit. Bakshi's movie definitely has its faults - but no more than PJ's TTT does. Now won't somebody please give Mr Bakshi the money to make the second movie? - I'd love to see what he'd do with it.
-
Orson, while I personally will take every minute of ROTK that I can get, I do tend to agree with you that the editing of TTT was hardly optimal. As someone posted in one of the TORN reviews, it was like beautiful pieces of stained glass that weren't fitted quite right when it came time to make the window. The pieces all seem to be there (too many of them, in some cases), but there's just something WRONG. And since the wrongness is all mixed in with the rightness, I keep going back. I simply don't have that feeling watching FOTR in either version, other than a few bits in the SEV that we mostly agree could have been left on the cutting room floor, which are compensated by other bits that I can't believe were ever left out. In the case of TTT, I really am pinning my hopes on the SEV to bring back that feeling of a sure hand creating a masterpiece. It's difficult to know where to place responsibility, when many directors were at work. (Boromir's final battle and death scene, for example, turns out not to have been directed by Jackson at all - and it's one of the most emotionally wrenching parts of FOTR.) The mixed wonderful and awful is particularly strong for me in the exterior Rohan scenes, which obviously work perfectly well for others. I know what I'd cut and what I'd add to... and in some places, I can almost feel the missing scene, which I couldn't in FOTR, other than obviously the gift-giving (because we know it should be there, and because the cloaks and brooches appear.) Anyway, I can only hope they take the time to really make the TTT SEV the best possible version - and while walking away from ROTK and coming back to it fresh may be a good idea, you know it won't happen. The Christmas opening is fixed; and I just hope that everyone involved is inspired in the true sense of the word to bring it all together as perfectly as is humanly possible.
-
God, would a straightforward non-hosed talkback be too much to ask? Apparently for this site, it is. Why can't they fix it? It's been going on for years and seems to only get worse. DoT, well I feel sure that at this point, if PJ really wanted to postpone the release of ROTK to 2004, he could do it. He's the boss now, since he has proven (twice) that he can smash the box-office. If they're allowing him to go over the three-hour limit, they will surely allow him to finish ROTK properly. I am still EXTREMELY nervous about the rumours of ROTK being as long as four hours. Now, the failings I see in TTT and parts of the SEV give me genuine cause for concern. There is a real danger of all this success going to everyone's heads at Newline and Wingnut - causing them to throw their judgement to the wind and release an overinflated turkey. As wonderful as LOTR is, it still needs to adhere to the demands of the cinematic medium. A movie needs to be structured, focused and tightly paced. You ignore these factors at your peril. Can PJ possibly maintain an audience's interest over four hours? Although he's left himself with a lot of ground to cover in ROTK, three hours should be more than enough time - particularly if he holds back on introducing his own material. But if he pads out ROTK with more meandering scenes of Arwen tossing and turning on a couch, Elrond bemoaning for the fiftieth time that "the time of the elves is over", cheesy scenes of the Gondorian peasants huddled behind the walls of Minas Tirith etc etc, then the audience will definitely lose patience with it. **** Lastly, I want a new edit of TTT very badly. I am certain that PJ could have made a much better movie with the same material.
-
(Responding to Orson, in particular) It seems to me that if Jackson hadn't felt compelled to insert Aragorn falling off a cliff, re-writing the Arwen backstory, and weeping/trudging Rohirrim women, there would have been room to keep in everything that needs to be there (including some missing bits, such as a flashback to Boromir floating by Faramir) and still get Frodo and Sam as far as Morgul Vale. It's funny to me how often Jackson talks about how something needed to be there because it was "iconic," yet messes with what to me are FAR more crucial passages in the book. I am seriously worried that Sam and Frodo's walk in the woods and Gollum's monologue have entirely replaced one of the book's most moving and ESSENTIAL scenes: Frodo and Sam discussing their realization that they are only the latest part in an ongoing tale, Frodo falling asleep in Sam's lap, Gollum's near redemption, undone by Sam's words. Will there be any hint of that, or has Gollum now already made his final decision? Will Morgul Vale be there, or has the Nazgul encounter taken care of that? I know there was a miniature of Minas Morgul, so there is hope.... But at any rate, ROTK still has to cover all that, Shelob, the Tower, the trudge across Mordor, the orc army, the slopes of Mt. Doom, the Crack of Doom itself - and that's just Frodo and Sam's part of the story, easily an hour (unless they shortchange it, which would be horrible). Meanwhile, Sarumen must be dealt with, Pippin and Merry separated, everything to do with Aragorn and the Paths of the Dead, everything to do with Denethor and Faramir, two major battles, Eowyn an Merry and the Nazgul... All leading to happy coronation, and apparently - INSTANTLY getting Frodo to the Grey Havens, since there is no Scouring. I am still trying to get my head around that one, or to imagine how (especially with the Elves already leaving in droves) the hobbits are to return home to a happy ending. How do they deal with Frodo's ongoing pain... or does Arwen just give him her place in the boat after the coronation, and they go straight there? And footage has been shot of Sam returning home to a toddling Elanor, which makes the time frame the more puzzling. This will either be the world's most amazing job of scene selection and editing, or could be utter disaster (at least for serious Tolkien lovers). At worst, of course, there will be simply magnificent scenes and individual moments, and I'd still rather see too much than too little. And not that my opinion will count a jot in the scheme of things.... But I do wish I could have the SEV of TTT tomorrow.
-
While I think there are more logical errors and inconsistences in TTT, overall I think the editing of TTT is better than the theatrical version of FOTR, which is what it has to be compared against. It took me much longer to get used to the pace of FOTR than it did TTT, TTT has less sag (I for one think the build-up to HD is just right), and while TTT is less pretty than FOTR generally, in terms of colour palette, (it doesn't have FOTR's gorgeous greens and blues), I think it's a more ambitious structure and hence scores points. Considering that I don't mind the Rohirrim refugees, Aragorn's fall, the Elves at HD (which makes sense in the movie - often during the book I wondered when the poncy Elves were going to pitch in with more than presents and advice) then I reckon it as a more spectacular viewing experience. Frankly, there's nothing in FOTR to compare to the opening scenes of TTT, or the Ents destroying Isengard, or HD, or Frodo vs. Nazgul. And while I remain saddened by the fuck-up of Faramir, this is balanced by the non-fucking up of Frodo which rather affected my enjoyment of the first one. And it's not like Faramir doesn't have odd moments. I hate Sam's speech at the end, but I love the Legolas/Gimli banter, which is mostly the work of the scriptwriters, as is Legolas warrior moves - I'm constantly blown away by how he mounts that horse. And Gollum carries everything away. To be honest, I'm not worried about ROTK, at all. I'm sure info will drip in to worry me later, but just going off TTT, I'm perfectly content. For now. And jonesing like a mad thing for the SEV.
-
Alice, I envy you if you find TTT to be better than FOTR, but I am utterly baffled as to why you do. I agree that the drowning of Isengard is a terrific scene in itself, but......for me the scene is completely spoilt by the fact that I just don't buy it. Why? Because the whole thing has resulted from Pippin playing a simple-minded, implausible "trick" on Treebeard. This is the kind of plot device that only a child could feasibly swallow - and is typical of the kind of "dumbing down" which goes on throughout TTT. And as for Helm's Deep - I find the short battle sequence in the FOTR prologue to be infinitely superior in terms of its staging, choreography and dramatic impact. It also uses the famous MASSIVE software to far greater effect. Many of the MASSIVE scenes in Helm's Deep looked to me like a bunch of indistinct pixels swirling around at random. In my opinion, FOTR is on an altogether different level of quality - almost as if the two movies were made by different directors. There is NOTHING in TTT for example, to compare with the quietly dramatic scenes in Bag End or the introduction of Strider and his speech about the Nazgul. There is nothing to compare to the exquisite beauty of the moth. There are no Aragorn/Arwen scenes in TTT to match the lyrical perfection of their scene on the bridge in Rivendell. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that comes close to Galadriel's powerful voiceover in the FOTR prologue ("Darkness crept back into the forests of the world; rumour spread of a shadow in the East - whispers of a nameless fear..." etc) Or Saruman's dialogue in Orthanc when he traps Gandalf ("You did not seriously think that a hobbit could contend with the will of Sauron? There are none who can...") Or indeed, most of the scenes in FOTR..... Still, I recognize that I am in the minority on this one, as the general public seem to find TTT more accessible (though I would argue that this is because it has been dumbed down). ******* DoT: well, I can only agree with your concerns. I am shocked to think that Gollum's repentence may not make it onto the screen, but the more I think about it, the more I feel sure we will NOT be seeing it. (I note that Bakshi kept it in his version: and very nice it is too...). But it's a crying shame because this is MY FAVORITE SCENE IN THE ENTIRE BOOK. And contains some of Tolkien's best writing. I suspect that the closest we get to it in PJ's version is that sad expression we see on Gollum's face during Sam's cringey speech. It seems to fit Tolkien's description of Gollum suddenly looking like an old, tired and lonely hobbit. Also, because PJ has left himself so much ground to cover, there is probably no time for the repentence scene in ROTK. We may not even see the endless winding stairs. PJ will probably start ROTK with an action scene and therefore we will be thrown straight into the fight in Shelob's lair right from the start. Yup, I'm predicting that Frodo will be lying in Sam's arms within five minutes of the beginning of the movie.....We'll see if I'm proven right or not. **** Furthermore, up until now I have strongly believed that PJ has the right to make any changes or additions to the plot he liked - as long as he makes them WORK in the context of the movie. And I am totally fine with the changes to Aragorn, Faramir, Boromir, Arwen at the Ford etc. So I am definitely NOT a purist. But I will now come out and say that I think there was better material to work with in Tolkien's TTT than a lot of the stuff PJ made up for his movie....
-
Yup, as you say, there really is a huge amount of material to be covered in ROTK. Let's be honest here - there's no way PJ can do it without making serious cuts - even if the movie does stetch to four hours. Don't forget that he also has to fit in his own material... By the way, I like your comparison to the stained-glass window: my view is slightly more extreme than yours though: not only are the individual panes badly fitted, but they are of varying degrees of workmanship - and a few of them are actually cracked and broken. Also, a number of identical panes have been fitted twice, even three times to make the whole seem bigger than it is....**** Now I am quite certain that Gollum's repentence is out. He has definitely made his decision and it would just waste too much screen time for him to go back on it. From what I now know about PJ's methods, I feel he will want to get the characters into the Shelob confrontation as soon as possible.
-
I guess that our minds will just have to remain strangers to one another, Orson. I agree that certain scenes seem to be elided, added, and telescoped out in a more obvious way than the book, but other than the Aragorn/Arwen on-again off again and Faramir's morphing into Boromir's *less* sensitive brother on the magical changing banks of the River Anduin (though in all fairness, only a Tolkien crack whore is even going to notice that), I have no real, pressing issues with it. I see that they've done what they've done to the Treebeard scene to add "will they\won't they" tension, but I don't see that it's any dumber than Merry and Pippin running off to join Frodo in the first place, without telling a single soul where they're going, or Gimli believing that he's still got living family in Moria. It would not occur to me to compare a tiny snippet of the Last Alliance battle with the centrepiece battle of Helm's Deep - I suppose any battle would look militarily convincing if you only saw 30 seconds of it. If you thought any part of HD just looked like a bunch of swirling pixels, then I don't know what to tell you, as my mother is fond of saying. Your experience of this film, which I seem to remember you describing as "terrible", and mine is so different that it almost defies language - perhaps we should try communicating via a gigantic Bontempi organ a la "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" - maybe then we'd find some common ground. As for the repentance scene in Bakshi, I 1) salute its inclusion, 2) thought it was quite badly done - it packed none of the emotional punch of the book and was sacrificed for a comedy moment. It was just sort of thrown away. That you could single it out for praise just proves to me that we'll never see eye to eye on filmed Tolkien. Still, I liked what Bakshi did with the Ford scene. That gave me nightmares as a kid. So did the characterization of Sam, however - but for entirely different reasons.
-
Your lyrical descriptions of what was wonderful in FOTR just about make me weep for joy, remembering... (Alice, what parts sagged for you?) To me, the part best fast-forwarded after numerous viewings was the battle with the Cave Troll, which had the same kind of blurry camera movement that, to me, made Helm's Deep not remotely on a par with the battles of Stirling Bridge or Falkirk in "Braveheart," as far as emotionally immediacy: feeling that the characters' lives really are threatened, and feeling thrust into the chaos and carnage of battle while still being able to follow their individual actions. The greatest battle sequence for me, of the first two movies, remains the Uruk-Hai attack in FOTR: from Aragorn's first lazy walk toward the orcs to the deadly grace of Legolas to Boromir's amazing last stand to the most SATISFYING beheading in movie history... and then Boromir's almost unbearably moving death. I think Aragorn reached his highest stature with "the White City shall not fall..." and strapping on Boromir's gauntlets. And yes, to have the lyrical perfection of the scene on the bridge, the feeling that Arwen had CHOSEN her love, knowing full well the consequences... only to have the sense of this deathless love undermined by doubts and debate.... This was never meant to be a realistic relationship, with worries about compatibility and disapproving in-laws - this is the love that comes once in thousands of years, the stuff of legend. If they could have left it alone with "your path is already laid at your feet" or whatever the words were, it would have been perfect.... Aragorn has enough conflict wondering if he will win through to his crown and love and the Ringbearer succeed (without which he will have neither) without doubting whether he should accept that love. Yes, I do think some of the panes are cracked and redundant - and some are missing altogether. However, Orson, as to ROTK, I will take your bet that Shelob will open the film, since we have numerous accounts that something happens 40 minutes into it that had everyone sobbing, and I should think that would be about right for Frodo's apparent death. My bet is that the film opens at Isengard, or at least, something to do with it, and after Pippin and Gandalf set out for Gondor, switches to Morgul Vale, and the approach to Shelob's Lair. And again, Orson, you are probably right. Our favorite scene, the most deeply moving and complex scene in the ENTIRE BOOK, is likely not even going to be there. It has been broken into smaller panes, used in part and discarded in part, so that now Gollum's ultimate damnation is effected not by "a thoughtless word by the most selfless character" in the book, but by a perceived betrayal by Frodo, which a few words from Faramir (as he does in the book) should have set right. We will have no "almost the touch was a caress," no tragic irony of mis-perception.... Just onward to the tunnel. I really hope I'm wrong, and will be deliriously happy to eat my words. I'm still holding onto hope that Jackson will stick to the page with Shelob and the Tower, but then... he can't, can he? How can Frodo bring Sam to his knees with tears in his eyes, merely by lashing out at him verbally, after all Sam's sacrifice, when he's already held a sword to his throat? How can Frodo TOP that, and Sam live, and Frodo still be sane enough to continue the quest? Well, ten and a half months will tell....
-
I really am going to have to re-watch the Bakshi version... which I did not hate 25 years ago, or whenever it was in the theaters. And I was sorry it was never finished. Too much Helm's Deep, of course - that seems to be a common failing. (This would not happen, with women in charge.) And I couldn't quite believe what they come up with for Sam. But it was a long time ago, and memory dims. I did think the Black Riders were distinctly creepy; I remember that. ***This has nothing to do with anything, but it was a glorious day in San Diego. Air so clear you could see for miles out to sea and down the coast; perfect temperatures, dazzling blue sea with waves breaking clear green on the Coronado shore; all fading to a twilight of turquoise fading to midnight blue under a crescent moon. And my sister's Pomeranian fell in love...with a Sheltie.
-
And alternatively, as I said above, I hope I'm wrong, as I would dearly love to see that scene on the Stairs. And I certainly could see a deepening of the "tale" discussion. Though I have my doubts that they'll ever let Frodo's head end up in Sam's lap, more's the pity. Anyone that can't handle it... well, that's their problem. I want it. And I want Gollum's pawing at Master.... ***Yes, I do love Frodo sliding down after Sam, without a second's thought, not to mention his desperate resourcefulness in covering them both with the cloak. I even love the SOUND of the cloak. Positively swash-buckling! Though I'd have liked better matching shots, to make it more believable - the Easterlings were much too close, too fast, not to have noticed, though that is a great shot of their feet under the cloak. (This, if I may say so, is an example of a flawed scene that works because it is emotionally right.) And I love Frodo protecting Sam, for once. I hope they retain some of that inside Shelob's lair. (I feel a quote coming on:) "Fighting off both the sickness and the fear, Frodo gripped Sam's hand. 'Up!' he said in a hoarse breath without voice. 'It all comes from here, the stench and the peril. Now for it! Quick!' Calling up his remaining strength and resolution, he dragged Sam to his feet...." I would just love to see that - Frodo dragging Sam forward, for just those few seconds. It's so vivid. Well, the whole chapter is, really. I never understand people who say TTT is the weakest of the three volumes, when (to say nothing of the rest of it) it ends with three of the most masterfully-written and exciting chapters in the English language. And ends with the SINGLE most breathlessly suspenseful sentence I have ever read. Eight words, but such a load of agony. Jackson will have to cut away at that point - I wonder for how long? (It can't be too long, if we are to be crying 40 minutes into the movie.) Elanor, you should know - Hamlets always speculate about the unknowable. It's our natures. ***I was very thwarted tonight. Went looking for Bakshi, but Gaslamp Video had nothing, and it's several miles to a Blockbuster.
-
What were we, un-hosed for two whole hours on a Saturday night? Elanor, if you find this... Yes, the Gondorians look extremely sinister in their hoods. But then, even among themselves, they never look particularly engaging - which I think is a flaw. These are the good guys? I won't get into Faramir again, but his lieutenant is an annoyance, always interrupting; his minions are only seen as hooded figures, slamming Frodo into the ground, or shoving him along.... You just don't get much sense of a really beloved leader and his decent and devoted men. I'd have thrown in a quick bit of Faramir being gentle with the wounded, or reacting gratefully as someone brings him food... you know, something to indicate a bunch of guys in a tight place being decent with each other. All it takes is the odd gesture, and we'd be with him, white-shirtedness all the way.
-
I absolutely *loved* the no-nonsense way he swoops down to rescue Sam. This is the sort of Frodo we should have had in the first movie. Frodo's uselessness in the first movie always ran the range for me of making me feel slightly impatient to resembling an entirely different character to Book!Frodo. In comparison to TTT, I think Frodo's character in many places in FOTR got a Faramir-like shafting, frankly. DoT: as for FOTR sags, I always fancy a walk and smoke around about Rivendell in the cinema, and also Lothlorien (though the SEV corrected this for me). Lothlorien appears as quite a pointless episode to me in the theatrical release, and in hindsight I see why it always struck me as a good time to head for the loo or the snack bar. They arrive, are treated to some gnomic Elven utterances again, and leave. In the SEV, the gifts, the business of them not being able to get in initially (though Frodo's dirt makeup is all over the place in those scenes), the extended Elven gnomic utterances and the revelation of Nenya make it all seem a bit more like doing. I don't love every single addition to the SEV, but on the whole, they round out the film beautifully. I've no reason to believe the TTT SEV won't do the same, particular if it includes added Entishness as it most likely will. Oh! And it occurred to me why Gollum's repentance in Bakshi sucked - because there never was any betrayal incident with Faramir to give it context. In the book, Gollum never understands that Frodo acted to save his life, possibly because his own personal altruism is so destroyed that he simply can't comprehend it, in the way he can't eat lembas or bear the touch of Elven rope. His take on the matter, once they've all made up again is something like "Smeagol forgives Master's little jokes", which is hardly the same thing. Also, any film with that much Gollum in it can't help but be better.
-
Well, Alice, I will definitely concede that there was no explanation as to why Merry and Pippin threw in their lot with Frodo and Sam. I'd actually forgotten that! After seeing the movie so many times - I now just accept it and don't let it bother me. Maybe I'll do the same for TTT!! Now that would be sweet! You're dead right about Sam in Bakshi's version (shudder!)He is utterly ridiculous - in fact the very thought of him makes me embrace PJ's 'Oirish' Sam with gratitiude. Now let me clarify one thing: I am NOT saying Bakshi's version is brilliant. There is much in it that doesn't really work. But there are occasions when Bakshi gets things dead right - and credit where it's due, right?. I'll come to that in a while. I know what you mean about the "sneaking!" line being too comic - but the preceeding debate between Slinker and Stinker is pretty good - very close to the book - and you can see that Gollum is in pain and is very weary of being who he is. That's an honest stab at the scene in my opinion.******* Elanor: well, I guess I've gotten over my initial disappointment and am able to talk about this a little more calmly. As for Elrond's "our time is over" line - well, I tend to exaggerate to make a point (as I'm sure you've noticed). What I'm getting at is what I see as the rather redundant repitition of lines, ideas and scenes in TTT - some of which we already saw in FOTR. For instance, the shot of a hand slowly clasping/unclasping Arwen's white jewel or Frodo's ring. It was great the first few times in FOTR but is now becoming particularly tedious to me...****** DoT: Oh, I wasn't aware of that thing forty minutes into ROTK. Well, perhaps I stand corrected. Otherwise, everything you say in your post..... I couldn't have put better. And now, as regards Bakshi's FOTR, I'd like to point out one or two bits that are worthy of praise: (1) The prologue: done with silhouettes, it begins with a really evocative shot of shadowy ringmakers hammering anvils. This is a great way to begin the story. Using silhouettes definitely gives the whole thing a mythological feel (as well as being a budget-friendly solution). (2)The Nazgul: I have to say that Bakshi pretty much nails the ringwraiths - even more so than PJ. There are a few moments that are misjudged perhaps, but overall they are quite disturbing. (Notice how Bakshi uses wierd sound effects to create that creepy otherworldly feeling - especially the tortured breathing of their horses). The lone wraith that stalks the hobbits is all crippled and limping - but when a few of them get together they seem to grow in power. Their attack on the hobbits' room in Bree is done as a weird black magic ritual which works very well. Scared the bejasus out of me when I was a kid. Also - Frodo fans! - Frodo stands his ground at Weathertop - throws aside his cloak and launches a lone attack on the Witchking in slow-mo. Quite nicely done in my opinion. The Witchking, by the way is portrayed as a sort of creepier version of Darth Vader and does a nice number in black magic spells, to bring down Frodo's horse. (3) Aragorn. As far as I'm concerned, this is the Aragorn from the book. He may be wearing a silly miniskirt but he still has gravitas and authority. His speech to the hobbits in Bree is just cool: "After your performance tonight it won't matter what you call yourself.....They will come on you alone in some wild place where there is no help..." The bit when he says, "because if I wanted to take the ring, I could have it - NOW!" is genuinely startling. (4) The scene with the Uruk-Hai and Merry+Pippin is straight from the book. Grishnakh thinks they have the ring and wants it for himself - can't understand why PJ changed this to the orcs wanting to eat them - this version is far more interesting. (5) When Gandalf charges at Helm's Deep he SLICES the uruks with GLAMDRING. They fall down in showers of blood. He does NOT give them a gentle bop on the head with his staff!!....Well, that's all I can remember for the moment. Again, I'm not saying Bakshi's film is a triumph by any means. There are parts that are downright laughable. But there are definitely moments when you get a glimpse of the power of Tolkien's story.
-
I think i'd love that, no matter how it was edited, but we won't get that version in the thearters. most of the people i know, while still liking the film, don't like sitting in the cinema for three hours. But i hope gollum's repentace is kept in, if only for a few lines. The scene in the book is too perfect to be left out completely, and they can't continually pay homage to a scene without strictly including it as they've done for the scourging.
-
Miami and Orson, I am starting to think I should own the Bakshi LOTR, as your comments are bringing it all back to me (and I did see it more than once, back in 1970-whatever). The Ringwraiths have always reminded me of "A Christmas Carol," only the Alasdair Sim version (though oddly enough, I think the Magoo is the second-best version out there). Of course, they are also an archetypal image of Death - hooded faces, long fingers, raspy breath.... And, yes, John Hurt's voice was a plus. I rather liked the broken-nosed Aragorn, and wonder what Bakshi would have made of him as King. Miami, thank you very much for your kind offer (and Elanor, too). Give me a few days, as I may be able to track it down locally. How much is Best Buy selling it for? I KNOW I don't want to buy the others, but perhaps Blockbuster will have them, if I ever get to one. The problem isn't getting there (as my sister is always returning things, usually late, when I'm running around with her on weekends) but getting it back without the fines. The Bakshi I may want to own. ***I had breakfast this morning with the same couple I usually have Sunday breakfast with and sometimes quote, and the male half volunteered (without any reference to this talkback) that his guy friends all seemed to prefer TTT for the reasons cited above - more action, less talk, lots of violence (and never mind the finer points of military strategy). They couldn't care less about dumbed-down dialogue, or its reverse: language that would leave you shivering even on a bare stage, for which I offer Orson's examples: "Darkness crept back into the forests of the world; rumour spread of a shadow in the East - whispers of a nameless fear..." and "You did not seriously think that a hobbit could contend with the will of Sauron? There are none who can..." Those lines, spoken by great actors, are more terrifying than any orc armies, however awesome visually. I will even add that the sense of EVIL is greater in FOTR, as compared to the threat of brute force and sheer numerical superiority. And there is less sense of individual heroism than in FOTR. I believed Aragorn could whup the Uruk-Hai; I believed Boromir could rise from his knees with two arrows in him; I DON'T believe in the super-heroism of TTT, which actually diminishes Aragorn for me. ***While out at Borders last night, I looked through SFX magazine, which had an interview of Jackson which I have probably read before, but found myself really annoyed as he described the Warg attack as a tribute to Ray Harryhausen, and said there would be more of the same with the oliphaunts in ROTK. I'm not really crazy about using LOTR to drag in "hommages" to Hitchcock or "The Wizard of Oz" or anything else that inspired PJ, if it's going to pull us out of the screen to say, "Look, an hommage to (----)!" instead of our being riveted by Tolkien's story. The oliphants in TTT were pure Tolkien, briefly-seen and dreamlike in their immensity. I absolutely loved them. But are the oliphaunts in ROTK going to be there only to give PJ another five minutes of "Harryhausen" or to advance Tolkien's story? Is Jackson not going to have enough money and clout after LOTR to make ANY MOVIE HE WANTS? Anyway, I must open up my phone line, so that's it for now.
-
Do my eyes deceive me? Are there actually people here praising Bakshi's abomination? I'm probably the only person here that actually saw the Bakshi film before I read the book, and at that time I thought it was a baffling piece of crap. Last year I bought a video copy of the film thinking:
-
Miami, you're absolutely right - the voice-work by John Hurt is excellent. I do like the look of the guy playing Aragorn too - all weatherbeaten and broken-nosed: as far as I'm concerned, this is close to how Tolkien describes him. But don't think that I have any problem with Viggo - I think he's brilliant too - a version of Aragorn that is twenty or thirty years younger. He's just as cool and that suits me fine. ****** Well, DoT, once again you and I are totally on the same page as to what gives us shivers in these movies. The creeping sense of evil that gathers in the first half of FOTR; Saruman's brilliantly spoken lines which are far more menacing than any amount of CGI orcs. I have no time either for the "invincibility" of our heroes in TTT where they can throw themselves on pikes with wild abandon....By the way, I have some friends who have not read the books and still preferred FOTR. They said it was "more magical" and that they felt something was missing from TTT. And one more time with regards to Bakshi's film: Be warned that much of it is ridiculous - and the costumes and music are mostly terrible. You will definitely cringe at many of the scenes. And some of the painted backgrounds are too weird for description! What to say, for example, of the interior of Orthanc? Aladdin's Cave gone mad? But then bear in mind that Bakshi covers exactly the same ground in one 2-hour movie that it takes PJ two 3-hour movies to cover. And I don't really feel Bakshi has omitted more than PJ has. In fact, he has stuck pretty rigidly to the text. And there are a few scenes that really do work: One scene that I really like in Bakshi which I feel may be superior to PJ's version: Gandalf's defeat of the Balrog. Now, PJ depicts this very literally and shows us Gandalf fighting the Balrog and then stabbing it in the heart. But Tolkien's own description of the scene is far more powerful than this - he makes it a kind of abstract/metaphorical confrontation - in fact it is told in biblical terms as if it is the indescribable battle between two angels. Bakshi, in my opinion, does a very good job of emulating this by showing the scene as a series of still paintings which he films with vertigo-inducing camera zooms. The confrontation becomes epic, unknowable and quite scary. Yup, a pretty good effort methinks...
-
Well, it all depends on your point of view. I'm the first to admit that Bakshi's movie has problems, but to write it off completely is just plain mean-spirited. I give Bakshi 10/10 for effort and credit him with being the first to tackle the huge task of translating Tolkien to the screen. Remember that back then, there wasn't the wealth of Tolkien-inspired imagery there is today. Howe and Lee hadn't even got going yet. At best, Bakshi would have had some of those hideous Hildebrandt paintings to look at - where Gandalf, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli and the hobbits all look like porn stars. Personally, I find Bakshi's movie artistically interesting - even striking - and I can certainly appreciate his overall intentions, even if he didn't have the money or the technical means to carry them out properly. It's not Bakshi's fault that the movie was misleadingly marketed as the full LOTR - this was the studio's ploy and Bakshi opposed this. The reasons for the non-arrival of Part II remain murky - Bakshi claims he fell out with the studio, though I don't know what about. Anyway, don't forget that many people were introduced to Tolkien's world though Bakshi's movie - even Peter Jackson's first copy of the book had a still from Bakshi's version on the cover (which is the same edition I first read at the age of ten - it was a terrifying shot of the Nazgul riding like demons out of Bree). Personally, my first introduction to Middle-Earth was a picture-book of stills from Bakshi's LOTR which I saw in the Children's library and I was so gobsmacked by the world contained within that I immediately read The Hobbit and LOTR. So I'm saying that flawed as it is, SOMETHING of the majesty of Middle Earth made it through in Bakshi's LOTR - and for that, I for one am grateful. And also: Peter Jackson doesn't hate Bakshi's film - in fact he has quite rightly lifted a few ideas from it. For that at least, Bakshi's film was worthwhile.
-
But Miami, I'll let you know if I can't get to Blockbuster within the week and check out the Bakshi. Hate to have you go to all that trouble, but again, thanks for the offer!
-
(And this is nothing to do with the quality of the film, on which I reserve judgment) I do remember walking into it knowing that it wasn't going to be the whole story, despite the title, so it was certainly publicized at the time, even if everyone didn't get the word. And I also recall wanting to see the rest, and hearing the financing had been pulled - not that Bakshi didn't want to finish it. As Orson says, if it positively influenced Jackson, it can't have been entirely without merit. Nor did I hate the score; in fact, I owned it until records became obsolete, though I learned fairly quickly that some of what I enjoyed most was a direct rip-off of Gustav Holst... an entirely appropriate inspiration for Tolkien music, one would think. Anyway, I shall soon see.... As for Bakshi's Aragorn being "closer" to Tolkien's, I think what was meant is that he looks more obviously "foul" than Viggo, who clearly looks quite "fair" to a lot of women, even on first inspection, with unwashed hair and clothes in which you would probably smell him before you could see him. Not having seen the film in 25 years or so, all I can say is that I remember being taken aback, but then deciding it was a valid choice. And amen to being grateful that the Brothers Hildebrand have been ignored as inspiration for ANY version.
-
...Or rather, this brilliantly scathing review of Bakshi's LOTR did: http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm ["Milking the Giant Cow" being a phrase that constantly jockeys with "Offering Sauce" for the number one position on the List of Things I Really Enjoy Saying] To be perfectly honest, if I wanted to go down the list of why I think Bakshi's is a laffer right up there with the Rankin and Bass jobs, I'd just be aping that peeved off (tho very funny) guy. [If he ticks you off hugely, Orson, maybe you'll see why you got beat up so bad when you went ON and ON hating T2T in front of ITS biggest fans and defenders... ;)] But the thing is, R/B consistently manage to poke a giggle out of me, whereas when Bakshi gaffes it up I feel naught but yawns of tedium. And, yeah, saw it as the same 8-year-old, but LORD did that not push my buttons... except to find out what "really" happens in the book my brothers loved so much (HAD to be cooler than that!), not to mention again what happens next. After watching the Bakshi DVD these days--and, sure, once in a while, when someone asks to--I HAVE to put in the R/B ROTK, just to clear the palate! *** That review was written well before the current set of films, and it's telling to see which of the listed criticisms could be applied to Jackson's films so far (one of my favorite being How To Recognize An Elf #3 "They're all exposed 3 F-stops too bright" Ha! Oh me dear sweet whited-out Cate!), and yet, in PJ's movies... work. Speaks loads toward the filmmakers accomplishing much more in making a film than just design work and Ticking Off The Expected Plot Points. If all you want out of watching a LOTR movie is to Tick Off The Expected Plot Points, then I don't think PJ is making these movies for you, and don't get your hopes up too high for what you think you need to see in ROTK. ...Of course, I have my immutable list, too. It has one item: "Well, I'm back." Hey, what's a fanatic if not occasionally a hypocrite? :^)
-
Here's a significant difference between FOTR and T2T that I just sorta caught onto at #6 (I'm behind!). This been brought up before? In T2T there's none, or hardly any, of those "impossible shots" that were so incredibly jaw-dropping that first time in FOTR, and still awing dozens of times later. I'm thinking most of the tracking swoops into and around Orthanc/Isengard, either following the moth and then punging straight down, or the crebain, or the swing around the pinnacle as Saruman invokes Caradhras... them kindsa things, I'm sure there were others, just escaping my colindar-like mind. Well, in T2T there's the opening Balrog fight of course, but that could almost be said to "belong" still to the first movie. Perhaps also the pull-back through the Uruk-hai spears (again at Isengard! Hmmm). Even at HD, the sweeping vista F/X shots weren't stunning for the camera's acrobatics or fantastic placement, but for what it was showing up on the screen. Anyway, I seem to remember Richard Taylor talking about how the first movie was much more fantasy, with its many monsters and such, but that the subsequent films would be moving even more into "feeling real," as in historical recreation rather than a Fantasy Adventure. Largely because the "fantasy" elements of Middle-earth are exactly what's passing at the end of this Age. I wonder--may the reduced swooping be part of that overall design? Or am I way way off, and just blanking on the cool shots...? Probably have to go see it again, make sure! ;) Anyway, curious what y'all might make of that observation.
-
...like trying to catch pLunging water with only a colAnder. Bah! >:P
-
Pallando, I heard that, too, but can a film really be moving toward realism that contains Gollum, Nazgul, wargs, trolls moving giant gates, and the flaming Eye of Sauron? Rohan might be slanting toward realism, though I thought it UN-realistic that an entire people not use combs and yet show up in matching dark burlap within hours of its prince's death.... How many bolts of cloth did they keep on hand, anyway? But yes, I was really looking for those swooping shots, and I guess the equivalent of the FOTR jaw-droppers (minus swooping) was the climb up the now-completed Dark Tower (which I presume was meant to expose the ludicrous egotism of Saruman, talking about sharing power...the fool!), the massed troops from Saruman's balcony and pull-back throught the pikes, the various amazing shots of the orc army on the march, the entire destruction of Isengard, and the emotional and cinematic piece-de-resistance, the Nazgul rising from beneath the wall and hovering over the Ringbearer. The "swooping" I DIDN'T like included the circling, out-of-focus shots of the Three Hunters (with Gimli stumbling and falling in the rear). As for "equivalents" in insertion of non-Tolkien action scenes, I was hoping there'd be something I liked as much, and made me as giggly, as the Stairs (on my first few viewings, anyway), but the Wargs didn't pull that off for me, as being too MUCH a detour, and only a few chuckles from Gimli and the mounting pile of carcasses.
-
It's probably going to be short, and so far it's un-hosed. Unlike my last post HERE.
-
I saw Bakshi in the cinema, and my friend (the chick who got me into Tolkien) already knew it finished halfway through because her older pot-smoking brother had seen it the night before. There was certainly nothing in the movie or the advertising that implied that that might be the case, however, until the very end of the picture. Anyway, I decided to watch this again last night (I had bought a second hand video player, so I needed to test that anyway). So I popped it in, and... you know, even the things Bakshi does well are kind of fucked up. You are just less inclined to notice during the good bits. Even the flight to the Ford contains a) someone who isn't Christopher Guest saying Frodo's "Go back!" line, and b) the weird business of the Nazgul being unable to master their own horses. You just forgive the movie at the point cos it looks cool, with the trippy Wraith world thang and the four Nazgul floating in on a storm in a kind of Four Horsemen type way. But Aragorn's skirt is so short it's risible, which makes it very hard for me to take him seriously, John Hurt or no. Merry, Pippin, and Legolas all change hair colours regularly, from one scene to the next, indeed more regularly than Saruman changes his name to Aruman. Also, S/Aruman is pretty much shortchanged as a villain, but then in all fairness he's not being played by Christopher Lee in this version. And the Hobbits... dear Lord. I saw Frodo kicking the dirt like a sulky kid, then cower next to Aragorn, looking ready to suck his thumb. Letting them loose upon the Quest comes across as a kind of reckless child endangerment. Anyway, sometime after the Balrog falls (and what a fucking stupid looking Balrog that was) I suddenly realised that life is too short to watch shit films, especially with FOTR winking away at me in glorious crystal clear divida, so I switched it off. And anyway, my Hobbit and ROTK came today. I haven't dared watch them yet. Anyway, if you liked the Tolkien Sarcasm review, check out the review at Stomp Tokyo (www.stomptokyo.com) which is equally hilarious. They also do a nice line in the Star Wars Holiday Special. Oh, and just so you know, I now own the cutest hamster in the world. Soon I will be unstoppable...
-
Bakshi's Frodo sucks his thumb? Damn right! But then PJ's Frodo hands over the ring to the flying Nazgul. D'oh! Well, ya pays yer money....MorGoth, it's true that our opinions can be influenced - to a point - by childhood reminiscences - the same way that feeling ripped-off by a fraudulently advertised movie can totally blind you to any qualities that movie may have, wouldn't you say? For me, there was an interval of about eighteen years between when I last saw Bakshi's LOTR and when I re-discovered it last year on DVD! The intervening years have transformed me into an artist and graphic designer so I assure you I now look upon this movie with VERY different eyes than when I was a spellbound kid. And I STILL find a lot to admire. Yes, it is a matter of personal taste and I've been through a lot of wacky stuff at art college, so I'm possibly more open to things that "look ugly". So I salute you, Ralph Bakshi - you great big ugly shining diamond! Now give the man some money to finish his film!
-
...to see if anyone's still here, since no one took me up on my suggestion to shift over to the Shore talkback. I don't know what to think about the Oscar nominations, except that it seems unfair for Shore and Ngila to be left out, when their work was as good or better this time out as it was for FOTR (when Ngila should have won, along with Shore). Anyway, I have to help file a motion with the court today, so no time for controversy.
-
Wow, I guess great minds don't think alike all the time! ;) I really liked GONY - I was rivetted throughout it's running time, and though Bill the Butcher has more ludicrous idiosyncracies than your average Bond villain, I thought he was a very strong character. I also loved how the gangs' conflict was eventually rendered moot by the political events. But "A Beautiful Mind" did indeed suck. Did I tell you that when I saw it, I kept getting distracted by that camera boom sound thingy depending above Connelly and Crowe's heads whenever there was a major tearjerker scene? Most odd. And that got best director. Go figure. I didn't think it should even have been nominated - I also loved "Ali" from that year and thought ABM should have been bumped for it. I don't always love Michael Mann - I hated "Heat" for instance - but I did think that was a classy movie. I was also dissappointed by Catch Me If You Can, which I found really slow (Minority Report was better, and could have been better still if it had dropped the clunkier of its pseudo-philosophical underpinnings and just been presented as a straight noir thriller). I don't know what this says about me, except that my movie-going tastes seem to be heading East and the rest of the world's heading West. Ah well. It would be a dull world if we were all the same. At least I agree that TTT was comprehensively dissed in several categories. "The Time Machine" for make-up? Jesus, did any of the voters actually see "The Time Machine"? (though it had a couple of fab images). The people that made it must have done a *killer* presentation (isn't that how make-up noms are decided?). And speaking of killing, I see AOTC is storming it up at the Razzies, and rather unfairly, all things considered. It was only *quite* shit in places, after all.
-
I can only see Shore not being nominated if they somehow thought last year's counted for the whole epic, but not Ngila, since she didn't win last year. I will be able to report back for sure on that one, after seeing the costume exhibit on the 21st. As for PJ not getting a nomination, in his case it PARTICULARLY makes no sense, if the movie itself is Oscar-worthy, but, well, you all know my feelings about FOTR vs. TTT, and I think if you're going to single out one-third of the epic as a masterpiece - based on what we've seen so far - then it would have been FOTR, as TTT had greater highs and lows, not so many obvious "acting" scenes and definitely felt more like the work of a group of people rather than a film guided by a single hand. I would have been very bummed out had it not been included in the nominees (it's certainly the only one I want to own), and hold out hope for next year, because I DO think the Academy is waiting to see it all put together, and it is obviously much more emotionally satisfying to award a finished project than its component pieces. And unless Elijah Wood's performance takes some kind of bizarre downhill turn (which seems HIGHLY unlikely, given his talent, professionalism and the raves he's earned from his co-workers, especially regarding ROTK), he had better be up there next year. And I want a massive write-in campaign for him for all those other awards we get to vote for on-line. For my money, Viggo is well-cast and does a superb job, but for New Line to keep pushing him forward as the best actor of the bunch (now that Ian McKellan has lost probably his best chance) is rather myopic of them. I can't even imagine the thinking that went into the makeup nominations.... I haven't seen "Frida" but DID see "Time Machine," and felt like fast-forwarding the second half. As for the other films, I still haven't seen GONY or "Pianist," and have not liked most of the rest, though (sorry to differ, Alice) I thought "Catch Me" was exceptionally well-made for what it set out to do, and Christopher Walken would get my vote. But then, I thought he should have been given Best Actor for "Dead Zone," which was an amazing and unforgettable performance around which the entire film turned. (It's one I DO want to own on DVD, eventually.) Many of my negative feelings are pure personal prejudice: I don't like Jack Nicholson, and I have seen him in far more interesting roles (I hate to see people rewarded for merely not-being-glamorous); ditto for Kathy Bates; I am tired of Meryl Streep doing Meryl Streep with the same giggly laugh, brushing her hair back, touching her fingers to her lips, laughing/crying, etc., etc. (my sister came out of "Adaptation" making a list of all her most annoying gestures); and neither of us likes Julianne Moore. And I don't think a movie should win for being a tribute to the style of another era, when the very thing it's imitating was cheesy in its day. And "Chicago" was flashy, well-made but ultimately tedious... I just don't care for two hours of in-your-face glitter and cynicism. As my sister said, it was a tribute to narcissism, if that's something you get off on. Me, I'll hold out for Frodo and the Nazgul....
-
I'm afraid I've a tough time liking Julianne Moore too!
-
Re: Julianne Moore - I said it was personal prejudice; nothing to do with her talent. Actually, it's more reaction than prejudice, which would imply I haven't seen her performances, and I have. To me (and my sister), her screen personna is cool and calculating, technically adept but off-putting and does not arouse our sympathy or interest. I haven't seen everything she's in, but then, most people don't trek out to watch actors that annoy them. I have the opposite reaction to Catherine Zeta-Jones; I think she's absolutely gorgeous, and I love watching her on screen - she's like a throwback to Sofia Loren, or an era when women were Women. She still didn't make me love "Chicago," though I loved her in it. As Orson says, apples and pears.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts