Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Mr Beaks interviews Peter 'DEREK' Jackson about LOTR, KING KONG and footwear!

Hey folks, Harry here... Since March of 1997 we've been writing about LORD OF THE RINGS and Peter Jackson... in the beginning it was a question about whether it was LORD OF THE RINGS or THE HOBBIT... Then there was the point where it all almost died. (Click) Then it was saved. (Click) Then it was really saved. (Click) Then Peter Jackson first began his conversation with AICN geeks. (Click) Then came the first 20 Questions. (Click) Then the second 20 Questions. (Click) Then there were all the casting rumors - SAM, PIPPIN, FRODO, GANDALF & BILBO, ARAGORN (not), SARUMAN, ARWEN, MERRY, GIMLI & LEGOLAS & BOROMIR, 1st Image of Orlando Bloom, FARAMIR (not), GALADRIEL & GOLLUM & WORMTONGUE & THEODEN (not), ARAGORN (for real), DENETHOR (not). Then there was Moriarty's Review of the 2 Script Version and my coverage of the ShoWest 2000 reel, the news that Howard Shore was scoring. Then there were the "THERE AND BACK AGAIN: A GEEK'S ADVENTURE" reports I did from NZ. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11... oh and for good measure... The Cannes Coverage! That's a sampling of the history of LORD OF THE RINGS on AICN... in all there is something like 315 LOTR stories on the site... I've found it quite entertaining to read not just the stories, but the Talk Backs upon all of this... My favorite stuff is the absolute hatred of Sean Astin as SAM... a role he now owns so completely. Figured you folks biding time till the next time you can get into a sold out theater to see this flick... well, you'd want the click through the history of it all...

Because of the histrionics I’ve noticed in the talk backs over spoilers in our LOTR coverage, I’m going to recommend that you consider this interview off-limits until you’ve seen the film. And, really, if you haven’t seen it by close of day Wednesday, I’m going to send Father McGruder to repossess your geek card personally.

Now, here’s Derek (and remember that this is a roundtable interview, so not all of the questions are mine)…

Are you glad it’s over?


Even though it’s not really over – you’re still doing the extended (editions) – but given—

Well, three films feels good.

Oh, you have your shoes on.

Yeah, I have my shoes on. I’m becoming sophisticated now, you see.

Did you ever imagine when you embarked on these that you’d be talking about them so much?

I didn’t really think about it, to tell you the truth. I guess it’s good that we’re talking about them, because if they weren’t very successful no one would want to talk about them. So, I guess it’s a sign that people are responding well to the movies.

It was a huge gamble doing this.

Oh, sure. An incredible gamble. I mean, an unbelievable gamble. A gamble that all logic and common sense tell you that it shouldn’t happen.

How genuinely surprised were you when the first movie did as well as it did?

I was relieved. Relief was more of the emotion than surprise. You never know what you’re making when you’re making it. You never have a clue. And all that you can do, and all that I ever rely on, is making the movie for myself. This one was fraught with all kinds of traps: if we listened too much to what the Tokien fans wanted, or their opinions, I thought we would trip ourselves up. We just regarded ourselves as Tolkien fans – Philippa, Fran and myself – we thought we were going to make it for Tolkien fans, but it was going to be us, not the huge number of fans out there in the world. So, at the end of the day, the decisions that we made on the movie was really, “What would we want to see in the movie? What would we want to enjoy out of the movie?”

Taking a no-holds-barred approach to what you could cut out of the film, the structural pitfalls are myriad, especially in terms of RETURN OF THE KING, where you’re dealing with a lot of falling action, and what some would say is a long denouement at the end. With this film in particular, how did you attack the structural problems?

Obviously, we started with the book. But, then, our structure in this film differed from the book quite a lot because we had inherited a few sequences from THE TWO TOWERS book, like Shelob, or the scene on Minas Morgul going up the Cirith Ungol stairs, and then into Shelob’s tunnel… all of that whole section with Frodo and Sam was in the book of THE TWO TOWERS. When we came to three… in the very beginning, we sort of laid out a ninety page treatment of what we thought the films could be. Then, we developed screenplays. It was sort of compounded by the fact that we started working with Miramax, and we did two scripts, like a Part One and a Part Two. Then, when New Line came on board and wanted three movies, we then had to rewrite it. It was all during that period, which was, like, ’96 to ’99, that we were doing all of the script work and structural work. But we always felt that RETURN OF THE KING was, for us, the strongest film simply on the basis that it had a climax; it had an emotional payoff. It was the movie, because it’s the payoff film… it’s the reason that you make a trilogy. You want to get to the last one. The last chapter is the reason for the first two even existing. It always felt the most comfortable of the scripts to us, and it was more fun to shoot it, too.

You mentioned to the New Zealand Herald that your first viewing of the movie was actually at the Wellington premiere. Did you like it?

Do I like it? I was sort of torn between watching the movie, which I had seen in different forms many, many times. It was the first time I’d seen all the sound effects, all the visual effects, all the color grading and everything in one long run. But I’d obviously seen it many, many times in earlier stages. I was a bit distracted by being interested in what everyone’s reaction was to it, so I was sort of watching it, but I wasn’t able to disengage from the fact that this was the first public screening of the movie, and this was the first opportunity I had to gauge what people were thinking of the film. So, I wasn’t able to disengage from that to totally focus on the film.

Would you have worked on it more? Two weeks more? One month more?

You can work on anything as much as you like. The reality is that nothing’s perfect. Nothing’s ever perfect. We’ve never once at any stage had a script, or an edit, or a special effects shot, or a music cue that we’ve said, “That’s perfect; don’t touch a thing.” You get to a point when you run out of time. So, to answer your question, if we had worked on it another week, it would’ve been better. If we had worked on it another month, it would’ve been better. Anything would be better. Scripts would be better if you worked on them longer, but, at some point, you have to send it out to the big world, and hope that people like it.

Having devoted so much of your life to this project, what is that drove you?

Wanting to see the finished film.


Yeah. I don’t have any agendas other than, really, I just love movies. I always have. You get excited about… an idea of a film, whether or not it’s adapting LORD OF THE RINGS or an original screenplay idea. You get excited about it, and, really, what, for me, is behind the excitement is the fact that one day this could be a finished movie that you could look at and other people could see.

Which film do you consider that: the theatrical or (the Extended Editions)?

The theatrical versions. The DVD versions… it’s so interesting, because it’s all so new, this DVD thinking, a new way of thinking about filmmaking. It’s just kind of fun. (Pause.) I mean, the films that we’ve cut and released theatrically I regard as being the best versions of the movies that we should have in theaters. The motivation for the DVD’s is to give the fans the stuff that we couldn’t include in the films. And it has only grown out of the fact that we have so much footage. We didn’t ever think we were doing extended cuts when we were shooting the movie, but when we started to cut the films, and we realized there were all of the scenes that weren’t going to be in the movie, we just thought, “Well, these are good scenes, they’re legitimate parts of the book, they’re scenes that people would be wanting… or expecting to see.” So, we put them in this alternative version of the fans. At the time, I felt that I was sacrificing pacing and momentum in order for these scenes to go in, but I figured that the theatrical version exists, so this is like a version for the real aficionados who want to see this extra material. Clearly, the dynamics of DVD is different: you can get up and have a cup of tea anytime you like, you can pause it, you can watch it over two nights. Now, I read reviews where people say that the extended cuts are much better than the theatrical cuts. That’s the response that some people are happening. The unknown factor that you can never really know is would the extended cuts have gone down so well if they were the theatrical releases, and you had people sitting in the cinema for three hours forty minutes instead of three hours. Who knows? I don’t really regard them as the definitive versions of the movies, but I’m happy… every time I see a review where someone says, “Oh, this is better than the theatrical version.” I’m happy because they like the DVD version. That’s a nice thing to read. But I’m too close to it. I don’t really know.

Could you talk about the most challenging moment in making the movie?

I think there were several challenging things. The most challenging moment, or period of time, was the post-production of FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. I remember that being the most stressful time, because that year we were done with photography in 2000, and that year of 2001, when we were preparing FELLOWSHIP, that was where the pressure was really on. When New Line was starting to stress out, when they were realizing that everything depended on this release, they were flying down to New Zealand to look at cuts, they wanted to prepare a screening for the Cannes Film Festival, which was a lot of pressure for us to try to get that twenty minutes. It was a great idea; it was New Line’s idea. That was a fantastic thing to do. Everybody talks about the fate of the studio riding on these films; that year, I *really* felt the fate of the studio riding on the release of the film. That was a lot of pressure.

Other challenges have been more technically based challenges.

Obviously, Gollum was a challenge – to create a believable CG character – because if Gollum hadn’t worked, those scenes would just be laughable. And, you know, we shot all of that stuff… having no Gollum. We had Andy Serkis on set performing Gollum, but we had no CG Gollum. It wasn’t until we did a version of Gollum for FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, where you just saw him briefly in Moria, but he wasn’t particularly good at that stage. And we sort of kept it very minimalistic. We just kept on working and working, and it wasn’t until the beginning, or the middle of last year, that we got him to work. That was scary, shooting scenes on set and just hoping one day we’re going to have a great looking CG Gollum, but not having him there at the moment that we were shooting. It was kind of scary, really, because you’re putting your faith in something that you don’t really understand.

Why do you think the Tolkien mythology is as relevant today as much as it was when Tolkien wrote it?

I think it’s timeless. It’s relevant in the sense that… it’s not relevant to current affairs, particularly, unless you want to put your own interpretations onto it. All the themes Tolkien wrote about, it was stuff that he was passionate about. That’s what I like about Tolkien: he was wound up about quite a few things, and he just sort of put a lot of his opinions and his beliefs into the book. He was ahead of his time in some cases. His love of the English countryside, and his hatred of factories, and his hatred of chopping the forests down to fuel the engines of industry. That’s something that grew out of the sixties, in a way – the environmental movement – and here he wrote this book between 1939 and 1953, so no one was caring about the forest when he was. So, in some instances, political thinking has actually caught up to Tolkien. But other themes of his were much more broad – the themes of friendship, and war, and the fact that… some wars are worth fighting. What Tolkien was certainly saying is that what is worth fighting is enslavement. If people are trying to enslave you, then you should stand up against them and fight back. And, yet, he also very clearly was making a point that if when you win that war, that you don’t really win. There are no ultimate winners in war; there are only people that lose. You come out of war changed, and no matter the justness of the war, you come home different. That’s obviously very much true of Frodo. He didn’t win; he lost. He lost who he was. He lost his sense of innocence. Even though what he did was justified.

As a movie film, you’re now going to remake one of the greatest films of all time: KING KONG. We talked to Fran and Philippa about it; they said that you’re going to throw out the old script, and go on with something else. Tonally, what are you going for: is this going to be more of an adventure film?

What we’re doing with KONG now, and it’s a lesson that we learned from LORD OF THE RINGS… what interests us about KONG is to actually treat it very real. That’s sort of what we did with RINGS, which is to say, we have the fantasy elements; we have the Balrog, and the trolls, and the orcs, and elves, and dwarves, and things, but we’re going to write it with a degree of truth, if you like. Truth within the world that this story exists. So, we tried to eliminate a lot of artifice and simplicity from it, and let the actors play the roles as genuinely as they could, and with as much depth and true spirit. We think that KONG is going to be interesting, if we do that with KONG now. Our first script that we wrote was a very Hollywood, sort of INDIANA JONES-y type thing. Now, we think it’s going to be much more interesting… to treat it real. How would you react if you went to an island and found dinosaurs and a giant gorilla? How would you react if you see the woman being kidnapped by the gorilla? If you were the woman, how would you react if you were kidnapped by the gorilla? What *would* you do? The exploration of what you would do, and how you would feel, and who is Kong, and why is he doing this, and what does he represent? Our interest now lies in writing a script that will be very different to… our original script, writing a script which now has a lot of emotional truth to it.

Closer to the ’33 version as opposed to the De Laurentiis version?

Well, we’re basing it on the ’33 version. The De Laurentiis version was somebody else remaking the ’33 version. We are also remaking the ’33 version, so we are obviously basing it on a movie that I love.

And Naomi Watts is pretty much guaranteed?

It seems that way. We’re in the last stages – Universal is doing the deal with her agents. It’s about to close.

As you went through the three films, was there any aspect of your approach to the work that changed or got refined over time?

Our respect of Tolkien grew a lot. We actually went into it at the beginning with a sense of, “Okay, adapting LORD OF THE RINGS, we’re going to have to change this a lot, we’re going to have to make this more like a movie, we’re not going to be too locked into the book.” In fact, the very first drafts of the script reflected that to some degree. And, then, we just (realized) the more we read the book, and the more we examined everything, because, in writing the script, you’re also having a minute examination of what Tolkien wrote, and why he wrote it. You’re really putting your brain into it. And we just came to respect him more and more. There were a few things about Tolkien that annoyed us.

Like what?

Well, if you were writing an original screenplay of THE LORD OF THE RINGS, you wouldn’t have as many characters as you have. If you were writing THE RETURN OF THE KING as an original screenplay, the battle of Minas Tirith would be a defeat, not a victory. That was tough. This big battle where they win, and, then, you still have to sling this story around to Mordor, and another battle outside the black gates. It would be much easier for us if Minas Tirith had been a total defeat.

Did you ever consider making it a defeat?

No, no. We obviously changed a lot of things. We changed a huge amount of things. I don’t know what the rules are with a so-called faithful adaptation. Some people think we faithfully adapted these books, some people don’t, and I don’t know, myself, what the word “faithful” actually means in context of what we’ve done. But we’ve changed everything. Everything’s changed. Even a scene where you’d say, “This did this scene from the book, and it’s in the movie.” It’s changed. We’ve given some lines of dialogue that Gandalf says to Elrond. We’ve given some lines that Elrond says to Aragorn. I don’t know what being faithful to the book really means anymore, but… we drew the line somewhere, and, obviously, changing Minas Tirith to that degree, we sort of drew the line not to do that.

Do you really want the Oscar?

These Oscar questions are terrible, guys. (Beaks agrees.) As a kid who grew up making movies, winning an Oscar is obviously an absolute dream. It’s possible that these movies are the closest I’m ever going to come to an Oscar. It’s *highly* possible. I’d imagine that KING KONG is not going to get me as close to an Oscar as LORD OF THE RINGS will, so it would be really nice to win. But we have the fantasy stigma against us, and I have no real idea. I’m happy to try to disengage, and let other people do the Oscar thing and see what happens.

Do you think you’ll get to do THE HOBBIT?

I don’t know, actually. It’s a New Line issue with the rights. They haven’t spoken to me about it yet. Obviously, I would assume that New Line would be motivated to make it. You’d have to assume that, wouldn’t you?

Hobbits, schmobbits. When are we going to see BRAINDEAD 2: BABY SELWYN RIDES AGAIN?

Faithfully submitted,

Mr. Beaks

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:22 p.m. CST

    First posters suck

    by zacdilone

    But Jackson rules. Excellent interview.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:23 p.m. CST

    who is Peter Jackson?

    by PlantBoy!

    and what is this "Lord of the Rings" nonsense? Is that some hip new movie you young folk watch?

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Btw, he should have had the priest from Dead Alive...

    by PlantBoy! know the one, "I kick ass for the Lord!" cameo in the army of dead in RotK.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:25 p.m. CST

    feeling like a kid...

    by Dug Wells

    That what these films do to me. They inspire awe. No other film has done that since I was a child and saw Star Wars for the first time. I love these films passionately. I wept like a baby at the end of Trilogy Tuesday. Please make the Hobbit!!! Then I have a shot at being a Mirkwood Elf. Cast out of New York, too, Peter!!! Please!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson, you magnificent bastard!

    by morGoth

    I, for one, consider his movie a "faithful" adaptation. He got the main elements of the story right and that elusive quality sometime called the "feel" of the story was spot on. While I will always treasure the books, the movie adaptation is unique in its own right and so I now have it as well. Heh, PJ is magnificent but I love the feeling of being a LUCKY bastard! Eglerio Peter Jackson! Aiya...YOU DID IT!

  • The Gift giving scene in Fellowship, The Boromir/Faramir/Denethor flashback scene in Two Towers. They should have never, ever been cut. I really hate articles that mention how well this film is doing, "despite its 3 1/2 hour running time". Very irritating.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Excellent read!

    by Miami Mofo

    Thanks, P.J. and Mr. Beaks. Boy that part about the pressure before the release of LotR:FotR makes you realize just how lucky we are to have these films. ***And thanks Harry for posting those quick links to the archive. Nothing like a stroll down memory lane.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Old Talkbacks

    by Elohim

    Those old talkbacks included with the old LOTR stories are hilarious. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but it's easy to forget how crazy all of this seemed in the beginning.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Does anybody have any insight on the original King Kong DVD?

    by Manaqua

    I know there are some colored version out there, but is there an untainted version of the 1933 version out there on DVD? Has there ever been? Man, that is like in my top five list of most wanted DVD's!! ********ALSO, NEW LINE****** Please get the rights to The Hobbit. Please don't let anybody besides Peter Jackson make The Hobbit. What an utter travesty that would be!!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:58 p.m. CST


    by RenoNevada2000

    Thanks for taking the time to pull up all of those links to AICN's past coverage. Tonight will be spent taking a walk down memory lane...

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Hey Harry, thanks for the links, now as a special Christmas pres

    by mortsleam

    All the ones I posted as Walrus, too. No? Oh. Okay. I understand. <<Shoves hands in pockets and kicks stone glumly.>> And now, to forestall any future loss of posts: Whoo-hoo! Thank you Peter Jackson for giving us this amazing piece of cinema! Now sign up Ron Livingston and get rolling on King Kong!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Fell asleep through both previous movies

    by lionelhutz

    In the words of Michael Rapaport to Eddie Murphy in the neglected 90s classic 'Metro' - "I got two words for you. (CU) SEEK HELP" That little baby made the trailer.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Fell asleep through both previous movies

    by lionelhutz

    In the words of Michael Rapaport to Eddie Murphy in the neglected 90s classic 'Metro' - "I got two words for you. (CU) SEEK HELP" That little baby made the trailer.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:41 p.m. CST

    King Kong better be DAMN GOOD.

    by rev_skarekroe

    If it's not actually superior to the 1933 version it's just another waste of time and money. I don't care WHO'S making it. sk

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Thanks to all...

    by Elohim

    I know I'm probably going to catch hell for this from all of you cynical talkbackers, but I actually got a choked up reading these old articles. You see, I remember reading each of these for the first time, and seeing them now reminded me of how I felt when I heard these movies were being made, how I guessed and debated about every casting decision, how I waited for each installment of Harry's New Zealand trip and imagined what it must be like to be there. I remembered going to see Thirteen Days just to catch the LOTR trailer on the big screen. I remembered getting a lump in my throat at the hero shot of the Fellowship coming over the ridge one by one. I remembered all of those late nights looking at production art and waiting for my 56k modem to download the latest featurette from the official site. In short, this article reminded me of the huge part these movies have played in my life over the past five years. That's why the people who don't get these movies will never get them, and the people who do will have a hard time explaining why they do. This isn't just a Friday night away from the kids, or a DVD you pop in when you have nothing to do. For many of us, these movies represent the culmination of a long chain of experiences beginning at the first time we read the books, stretching through Bakshi and Rankin/Bass, Alan Lee and John Howe, aintitcool and TORN, trailers and special features, and ending at the Grey Havens late last Tuesday night when Frodo looked over his shoulder, smiled, and said good bye.********************************************* Thank you Peter Jackson. Thank you Fran Walsh and Phillippa Boyens. Thank you to the cast, who brought these characters depth and feeling. Thank you to the crew from WETA, to the stuntmen, to those poor souls linking chainmail. Thank you Harry. Thank you Drew. Thank you New Line. Thank you for making the past five years magical. Next fall, if all goes according to plan, I will be in my first year as a graduate student in film production at USC, and I think a large part of the inspiration for me to take that step has come from all of you. Thank you.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:52 p.m. CST

    Dear Peter: Please Please re-release DEAD ALIVE In it's UNCUT GL

    by MentallyMariah

    "From the director of The biggest Trilogy in History comes a little something he did when he was HARDCORE!!!!" DEAD ALIVE Uncut coming to theatres HALLOWEEN 2004! God Is okay to wish during the holidays right? :) I can see the Friday Night Young Kids going NUTS!!!!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:57 p.m. CST

    reading the old talkbacks....

    by BigMother was funny to see titles such as "Who the fuck is Orlando Bloom?!!" Dear me, how the times have changed....!!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by Bold

    I need an answer for the last question. Want it now! Damnit!!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6 p.m. CST

    Does anyone else think that Gollum bares more than a passing res

    by charliechaplin

    That was the first thing I thought when I saw him in the Two Towers. Just wondering if anyone else thought that too.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Aragorn in The Hobbit

    by JWBlack67

    All I know is that if PJ makes The Hobbit, Aragorn has to be in it. If you look at the timeline in the back of Return of the King, Aragorn was in Rivendell when Bilbo passed through during the adventures chronicled in The Hobbit, although he was a young child. What would be cooler than having Hugo Weaving introduce a child to Bilbo (probably not Ian Holm) as Aragorn; although I think his name was different then, but whatever...

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:08 p.m. CST we can have our cake and eat it too.

    by Danger Mouse

    All lovers of movies owe a debt of gratitude to Jackson and crew. At a tiime when film seems to be either spectacular but shallow or small but intimate, these guys showed us it can be both. PJ is like an old time craftsman more than an artist; lovingly working on a beautiful piece of furnature.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:09 p.m. CST


    by BigMother

    ...Read Chapter 7 of There and Back again..."3 years from today," Gandalf's staff in the wrong hand?!! I won't see the film till Sunday, when it will be exactly 3 years from the day Harry posted that article. Freaky weird Harry. How time flies when you're having fun.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Hey, Elohim...

    by Barron34

    I second the sentiment in your post. I grew up as a real devotee of Tolkein's books, and these films are like the Second Coming of Tolkein for me. They allowed me to live an adult version of my childhood pursuits, and I'm sure there are many others who feel the same way. It has been a wonderful experience, both as a Tolkein fan and as a movie fan. Again, I second your sentiments and regards to all of the people that you thank. One point that I would make is that we all should remember to thank the memory of Professor Tolkein, who was inspired to create such a wonderful world and such wonderful books that he shared with us all. I do hope that if Peter Jackson wins an Oscar for his work that he will expressly thank Tolkein on the stage, before the entire world. The work that Jackson and his cast and crew has done has been phenomenal, but it all began with the work of one man who devoted so much of his life to creating those wonderful books. Thank you J.R.R. Tolkein!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:22 p.m. CST


    by Barron34

    I have to compliment Beaks on his interviewing skills. He comes off as a real pro; much better than the many hack questions that so many other interviewers tend to ask film celebrities. Keep up the good work.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Actually the Braindead Babby Zombie was inspiration for Hobbits

    by ouagadougou

    I can imagine Peter using all those oversized props and other tricks in Braindead, and then thinking "Hey, I could do Hobbits this way!" And thus LOTR:The Movie is born.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:31 p.m. CST

    I haven't seen this movie yet, and I'm not ashamed

    by Ribbons

    Don't get me wrong, I want to see it. It's just...well, here: "If you haven't seen this movie yet I will...personally take away your geek card." Is this some sort of payback for kids telling you you had no life in high school? I'll see it whenever I get a chance to without sacrificing other arrangements that may pass me by, and in the meantime, the world will go on.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Why are you reading all your old posts....

    by GrassyKnowles

    ...when you should be updating your f-ing site?!? Jesus man! They only announced the goddamn Golden Globe nominations today! I mean, I realize that that info is everywhere - but somehow that warrants no commentary on your site - while we get yet another unintelligible headline like: "AnimAICN: Galaxy Angel; SEED; Remote; Immortal Rain; Black Jack; Sakura; Wolverine Snikt; and The 2004 Prix d'Angoul

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Dear PJ...please explain WTF happened to the easterlings in ROTK


    .....I demand to know why show them in TTT only to not even have them in ROTK?!!!! How long is EE of ROTK gonna be? 5 hours?!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:38 p.m. CST

    The RotK EE length?

    by Schmiggy JK

    A rumors yet on how long the extended edition will be? Its probably not even cut yet is it? Will the scouring of the shire be included, was it even filmed? At least the death of sauramon should be on there, and the battle between gandalf, and the witch king?

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:38 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    A Region 1 King Kong DVD has been rumored to be in the works for several years now, with a tentative release date sometime next year. However, if you -- like me -- can't wait, you can always order a Region 2 disc from, provided, of course, that you have a region-free NTSC/PAL DVD player and a multi-system TV. There are players that will play anything on any TV, but I would recommend the multi-system TV since PAL looks much better than NTSC.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 6:50 p.m. CST

    speaking of flashbacks

    by raker

    I recall prior to FOTR coming out JRD (gimli) saying that PJ's version of the LOTR would become the greatest trilogy of all time. At the time I was just praying PJ wouldn't fuck up and make Tolkien admirers into a bunch of leppers... Having only seen Heavenly Creatures and the Frighteners I was some what in doubt about as to what JRD was saying; actually I though he just being a pimp for New Line... And of all the billion things that could have gotten fucked up, I'll be if PJ didn't pull it off. So tonight, I'm drinking Steinlager for Peter Jackson.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Forget the Hobbit, Silmarillion would be better

    by Eternal

    Just one problem: is it possible to film this book? A very complex narrative and structure. It is almost a documentary. Everything is told in a matter of fact style which might be a huge shock to some people. But anyone who wants to know more about Sauron, Morgoth, and all the other characters and events in the age before LOTR, Silmarillion is the answer.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Where's the intermission?

    by WPMayhew

    Why didn't Peter Jackson design this film to have an intermission? "ROTK" is far from the longest movie ever made. Quite recently "Gods and Generals" and "Hamlet" were longer, but those movies had intermissions. I think "ROTK" is the longest movie released in American theaters without an intermission. Does anyone have the facts on this?

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Lord of the Short, Fat, Hairy, Caucasians?

    by CrunkMaster

    Has anyone seen this? Its fuckin hilarious! Holy crap. First funny LOTR spoof I've sen, ever! anyone know when this came out?

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:44 p.m. CST

    Still haven t seen ROTK yet, but going tonite;

    by Windowlicker74

    in all those reviews i haven t seen anyone write about the Mouth of Sauron. I hope they treated him well, after all, he s one of the kcoolest villains of the books.. some one tell me: did they make him humanoid or not? thanks

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:49 p.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    Actualy, I'd LOVE to see PJ do the Silmarilion (even more than the Hobbit!); would be even harder than LOTR as far as conversion goes, but if anyone can do it..........

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Forgot to ask the most important question Mr Beaks

    by Sho Nuff

    Why are you so awesome!?

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 7:54 p.m. CST

    bloody hell...over 5 years!

    by speed

    i clicked on a few of the links and realised that i actually read them at that time. i have been coming here for over 5 years!...god damn thats a long time. and yes, i want a medal.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 8:29 p.m. CST


    by Danger Mouse

    Remember, Derek's don't say die...

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Nice trip down memory lane

    by AlwaysThere

    One of the better articles on this site in recent months.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 8:50 p.m. CST

    Next Best Thing

    by batmasher

    I know I'll get slammed, but hear me out: Its not Tolkien but if you want more epic fantasy why not turn out a great Wheel of Time series? I mean think about it, there are some great movies in there somewhere and finally you'd have some books that you'd want to have cut and altered like crazy as well as some characters you wouldn't mind removed!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 8:54 p.m. CST

    After spending another 10 bucks last night...

    by digdig

    I love what Peter Jackson and those guys are trying to do but.. these theatrical releases are shit compared to the extended versions and this was the worst of all. Very disappointing by the standards of this trilogy. I would wonder if people are convincing themselves that this movie was better than it was but... i'm glad they enjoyed it. If they do make another hobbit movie down the line i wonder if they can consult the best minds on earth and find a way somehow make the hobbits fruitier. Jumping on each other in bed and acting like they were gonna make out to give gandalf a peep show wasn't nearly gay enough. The action kicked all ass though.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 9:04 p.m. CST

    Go to hell GrassyKnowles!

    by Virgin Geek

    This posting by Harry was one of fond memory for years put into hoping n dreaming about this movies coming to life on screen. I for 1 have loved reading backon the previous Harry posts. Harry gets shit on everyday. If you want to read about the golden globes - go to fucking E online you bitch. PS - The intermission suggestion is just plain balls.

  • Boy, have you marketing folks got us pegged! And right after the release of a movie we've been expecting, so that we can set our periscopes onto 'Club Dread!' I KNOW I have to spend over 8 bucks on that, if only to look at a real, live woman I've heard so much about! I KNOW I'll be there, because I'm one of those stinky fanboys that you don't even understand because you're afraid touching them will give you cooties! Slobber slobber!

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Hey, Shithead

    by Ribbons

    Thanks for the good news. About time we started seeing some inter-studio cooperation. Isn't the same thing going on with another production? The Amityville Horror, I think. Maybe we can have peace after all.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 9:32 p.m. CST

    So when does the sequel come out?

    by CranialLeak

    If you stay to the end of the credits, we see a glimpse of Sauron's eye twitching in the rubble. You know it ain't over! :) Anyone who knows anything, best not respond to my obvious trolling.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 9:38 p.m. CST

    "You've got... THE BITE!" "There's some Dettol in the jeep!"

    by Cash Bailey

    Does anyone outside of the Antipodes get this joke? I almost piss myself everytime I see it.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 10:10 p.m. CST

    King Kong will suck

    by Rupee88

    I like Peter Jackson and I love the original King Kong, but I just have a feeling that the film won't work...especially if they treat it too seriously. It is supposed to be campy fun...well, I wish him the best of luck and I will probably go see it, but I hope they don't make King Kong look too real. They screwed up Godzilla by drastically changing his appearance and I hope they don't do that here either.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Amazing cynicism, Mr. Kong

    by pvecu

    This interview shows very clearly Mr. Kong

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Huan Lives!!

    by TV's Frank

    It would be completely impossible to make a film version of the entire Silmarillion. It would take like 20 films. That would be like saying that you were going to make the bible into a movie. But it would work to make film versions of certain stories, like the fall of Gondolin, or Turin or Beren and Luthien. Those would all make great movies, I think. But I guess its probably unlikely that anyone will ever actually do that. The Hobbit would be awesome too though. I hope something can be worked out with the Tolkien estate.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 10:47 p.m. CST

    I'm really sorry to be off-topic, but I have to talk about this

    by user id indeed!

    OH DEAR GOD.... look at this thing's eyes.... it's a fake commercial that's acting as a teaser for "I, Robot": Look at the eyes!!! They're in my nightmares!!! If I see this commercial in theaters I will whizz all over myself, or someone close by.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 10:49 p.m. CST


    by Yossarian

    Good post. I got a big kick out of looking at those old posts. The casting was the best part...What could have been. Stuart Townsend falling out was the best thing to happen to this movie and no Mr. and Mrs. Thurman, thank you very much! I, for one, am glad most of the major characters were virtual unknowns (that goes for Astin, too.) It's so funny to see posters debating the merits of Orlando Bloom's proboscis when the guy is just solid as a rock in the films. Great stuff. This movie is a great example of great casting. I think it would be awesome if there were a great deal less "star vehicles" in Hollywood. The actors end up hijacking some films sometimes. Plus, so much of the budget is spent on their massive 20 million salaries that the quality of the film overall suffers. Alright, this has been yet another inane posting by yossarian's sleep-deprived, no chance to see the final installment, sick of gross anatomy, hating school, ass.***** BTW,Peter Jackson is Best Director in my book. These movies have been a massive undertaking and done with mucho aplomb. Thanks for all the hard work. We, for a measly 7 bucks, get to reap all the rewards. How cool is that? Thanks to Harry and crew for the window into this wonderful process. The anticipation and wondering and following was half the fun.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 11:36 p.m. CST

    Willis O'Brien!

    by mtoast

    If by some bizarre twist of fate, Mr. Jackson were to read this, I would implore him to have a character in King Kong named in honour of the great Obie -- the genius who breathed life into the original Kong, and who took a young Ray Harryhausen under his wing. Obie had a lot of tragedy in his life and had much trouble finding worthy outlets for his sizable talents throughout his career. But the people who come to this site owe him a greater debt than most of them will ever know.

  • Dec. 18, 2003, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Scenery from Braindead featured in ROTK!

    by Nazzim O'Bazzim

    The canyons leading to the Paths of the Dead! Right out of that "Skull Island" sequence at the top of Braindead! Please tell me I'm the first one to notice this and comment on it. The geek crown is mine!!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:31 a.m. CST

    Just Saw ROTK.


    Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:11 a.m. CST

    It's fun to read these old TBs again...

    by greenleaf

    Back in the days when I was completely insane. How things have changed! Now Eternal is the most decent poster on this board! Ha, ha!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:19 a.m. CST

    Realistic King Kong? Will we see a giant, swinging Kong dong?

    by Magilla Gorilla

    As great as Jackson's LOTR trilogy has been, does anyone else feel guilty about having zero interest in King Kong?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:21 a.m. CST

    Bored with Kong

    by Messyjoe

    Sorry Mr Jackson but there is a big difference between LOTR and Kong.LOTR has been treasured by generations around the world. Your films were well made, your vision of the books, well received, and rightly so. Yes not close enough to Tolkien for a lot of fans but well done. You owe us very complete extended DVDs however. Remember that in the future, 'they' will be what is remembered and seen over again, not the 'theatrical' versions! Kong has no where near the same magic, and don't be surprised if it's significantly less successful. You have seen one big monkey, and you may not want to see it again. I think it's unlikely the Hobbitt will be made, at least not by Peter Jackson. He will want to move on. Too bad. it is the prologue that needs to be made, at the same level as LOTR, as a worthy predecessor to a great series.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:21 a.m. CST

    "ROTK" is still longer than "Titanic"

    by WPMayhew

    IMDB lists the "Titanic" running time at 194 minutes. This is 7 minutes shorter than 201 minute "Return of the King." I personally think both movies should've had intermissions. There's nothing wrong with a long movie, but why does Jackson have to test the audience's patience and bladder to such extreme lengths? Are the filmmakers, distributors, and exhibitors this damn greedy? And don't give me any bullshit about an intermission interrupting the dramatic flow. If you've seen the recent reissues of "Gone With the Wind" and "Lawrence of Arabia," you know that a well-placed intermission can restore and refresh an audience, making them able to better comprehend the film's conclusion. In Europe, movies like "JFK," "Titanic," and "Schindler's List" have played with intermissions and the audience reaction is very positive. If Jackson's previous "LOTR" installments would have had intermissions, the films could have been even longer. Instead, what we're left with is a sort of half-assed approach where Jackson feels obligated to cut the film down to one manageable chunk. So we lose Christopher Lee in the theatrical cut of "ROTK" and all other sorts of coolness. We have to wait around for these ridiculous DVD extended editions to get the "real movie." But isn' t the thing that comes out in the theater supposed to be the real fucking movie?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Bored with Kong

    by Messyjoe

    Sorry Mr Jackson but there is a big difference between LOTR and Kong.LOTR has been treasured by generations around the world. Your films were well made, your vision of the books, well received, and rightly so. Yes not close enough to Tolkien for a lot of fans but well done. You owe us very complete extended DVDs however. Remember that in the future, 'they' will be what is remembered and seen over again, not the 'theatrical' versions! Kong has no where near the same magic, and don't be surprised if it's significantly less successful. You have seen one big monkey, and you may not want to see it again. I think it's unlikely the Hobbitt will be made, at least not by Peter Jackson. He will want to move on. Too bad. it is the prologue that needs to be made, at the same level as LOTR, as a worthy predecessor to a great series.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Bored with Kong

    by Messyjoe

    Sorry Mr Jackson but there is a big difference between LOTR and Kong.LOTR has been treasured by generations around the world. Your films were well made, your vision of the books, well received, and rightly so. Yes not close enough to Tolkien for a lot of fans but well done. You owe us very complete extended DVDs however. Remember that in the future, 'they' will be what is remembered and seen over again, not the 'theatrical' versions! Kong has no where near the same magic, and don't be surprised if it's significantly less successful. You have seen one big monkey, and you may not want to see it again. I think it's unlikely the Hobbitt will be made, at least not by Peter Jackson. He will want to move on. Too bad. it is the prologue that needs to be made, at the same level as LOTR, as a worthy predecessor to a great series.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:37 a.m. CST

    In regards to long movies in theaters...

    by Magilla Gorilla

    ...the concession stand should sell extra-large Huggies along with their 32 oz soft drinks. Then everybody's happy. (Except the guy next to you when you think you're just gonna pee-pee, but, oops, here comes the big one! Urrrrgghhh! Aaahhhhh!) Who is Jackson kidding? The EE are SO much better than the theatrical releases. And watch, just as soon as ROTK leaves theaters, he'll come out and say, "Oh, yes, I always thought of the extended versions as the REAL films." He can't speak poorly of the theatrical version when it just opened in theaters, for Pete's sake.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 2:54 a.m. CST

    What the fuck is that MAX PAYNE ad doing in the middle of the go

    by Cash Bailey

    Keep it in the borders, Harry.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 3:02 a.m. CST

    Wheel of Time sucks

    by Kadence

    batmasher, you cannot possibly consider Wheel of Time to be the next best thing to Tolkien. It isn't even REMOTELY in the same ballpark. While it's true that WoT started off well--people vary one when it started to go bad; the consensus is that the first 4-6 books were good to great--it has become an abonimation. Books 7 on have sucked beyond belief and have almost no redeeming qualities. Jordan writes the most shallow and offensive female characters ever. He has lost the trust of the vast majority of his loyal fans. (and losing your loyal fans is no easy feat for a fantasy author to do) _____________If you really want to know the next best thing to Tolkien, it's George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire". Brilliant in every way. However, this simply could not be adapted to movie; Hollywood would butcher it. It would have to be a TV series than ran for 3-5 years. In any event, Wheel of Time is far down the fantasy list, with a number of other series having now passed it on the fantasy literature scale.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 3:05 a.m. CST

    What absolute hatred of Sean Astin as Sam?????

    by Kadence

    Harry is a complete idiot. If you read that article, Harry shows that he *expected* Astin to not be a liked choice--however, if you read the actual talkback, there's only a handful of posters that said anything bad about it. There were just as many who liked it, and most people didn't have an opinion one way or the other. _____Just another case of Harry believing reality reflects his own beliefs, when it does not.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 3:29 a.m. CST

    I am looking forward to "Kong"

    by John Anderton

    The 70s versions were CRAP. The 1933 version was *not* campy. It was as realistic as could have been made at that time. I too read the original Jackson draft, and I agree it sucked, but I'm very excited to hear they are scrapping it and going for a more realistic treatment. Kong will own as much as Jurassic Park did in 1993. If you disagree, I'll go red ball on your ass. ~ This is John Anderton: signing out.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 4:56 a.m. CST



    ...The mouth of Sauron is NOT in the does that feel?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson is the sexiest tomboy beanpole on the planet

    by mbaker

    And Hulk Hogan should play King Kong, brother!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 6:40 a.m. CST

    The ROTK Special Edition will rule them all!

    by The Goatboy

    The links to past articles on LOTR was an excellent idea - cheers Harry! Anyone who doesn't like it can sod off, create their own website and see if they can do a better job. I reckon the Special Edition of ROTK will seriously improve the theatrical cut - ONLY THEN WILL IT WILL BE THE BEST FILM EVER MADE! I WANT TO SEE AN HOUR OF EXTRA MATERIAL IN NOVEMBER 2004 JACKSON!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 6:53 a.m. CST


    by batmasher

    OK I'll check out Martin's work. But my whole point was to use the first "good" WoT books and then wrap it up like Jordan doesn't seem to want to. What about Hyperion? I heard someone else mention it. Maybe that's drifting toward Sci Fi-in which case we need to see Ender's Game too. I know they were supposedly working on it but its dragging.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Here's hoping...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...that we finally get a new, serious, ass-kicking Conan film within the next few years. If we do, and it's the richly textured Hyborian world we all want it to be, then we have PJ and LOTR to thank for it.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 7:41 a.m. CST

    All I want for Christmas (well Hanukkah, actually) aka It's my b

    by Miami Mofo

    Dear Sideshow Collectables: Please ship one deluxe GROND doorknocker with flames shooting out of its mouth to my home address as soon as possible. Thank you, M.M. ***Going to my second viewing today. Hopefully my SEEES (Special Extended Edition Expectation Syndrome) condition will start to abate. I really liked my first viewing (but I loved LotR:FotR - no SEEES back then!), even though I'm still shaking my head about Comet Denethor (his whole 'caracaturization' actually, which is a shame because I thought that the TTT-EE Osgiliath flasback scene and his introduction in it were brilliant!).

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Read the talkbacks from 1998!!! Hilarious!!!

    by godoffireinhell

    One Daddylonghead wrote: "What a wise decision. Peter Jackson is a hopeless hack. Lord of the Rings is unfilmable, and even if "Fellowship" made it to theaters it would flop, and the sequels would be direct-to-video. The only hope for this production at all is the rumored casting of Stewart Townsend as Aragorn... now that could work!"

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 8:22 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Not to mention TBer DD Ramone's comment: "My Picks... These are my picks and I think they would fit perfectly! Gandalf - Sean Connery Saruman - Charles Keating Aragorn - Jeremy Irons Legolas - Ryan Philippe Samwise - Rowan Atkinson" bwahahahaha.... It gives pause for thought doesn't it? I mean in five years time, your current posts might be brought back out of the mists of history for public scorn and amusement. Something for Indiana Clones to think about.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 9:25 a.m. CST

    mouth of sauron is not in the movie!!!! this doesn t seem to bot

    by Windowlicker74

    the movie was teriffic though

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 9:50 a.m. CST


    by XTheCrovvX

    Simple. First off, considering ALL THREE LOTR films were shot at once, and the plan to release them in December of 2001, 2002, and 2003 was in place the second New Line signed off on the deal, it was really tough to say that making a sequel to Fellowship of the Ring was a bad idea...they were in the can before we even SAW the first film.....Second, Peter Jackson's been trying to make King Kong for years.....the reason why we haven't bashed him for it is because, unlike most Hollywood reasons for capitalizing on a previous film's success, Peter's actually passionate about the project, it was one of his inspirations for becoming a filmmaker....and, considering what he has shown us with the LOTR trilogy, the man is allowed all the faith in the world to do the film right....from both producers and fans. You might not think so, but to each his own.....and about this whole "why can't he come up with something original" thing.....go rent Braindead, Heavenly Creatures, and The Frighteners.....the end.....Tarantino's another story....everybody on the planet knows he borrows from other sources.....but it's how he arranges the sources along with his own ideas that makes them original....and believe me, name any major film in the last 15 years, I can tell you what they ripped off and made their's not double's about knowing who's going to show the proper respect to a film, and its ideas, and who won't. And P.S., don't you find it slightly ironic you calling us nerd fanboys when you yourself have just wasted minutes of your life posting on a nerd fanboy website? Call yourself "buffguy" all you want, once you posted here, you lowered yourself down to fanboy level like all the rest of us. Welcome to hell, hypocrite. On a positive note, though, kudos to the TB community.....the troll level for this board has been a blissful minimum. There's hope for the future yet.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Just a not to all you star wars naysayers..... jackson himself s

    by TheGinger Twit

    Think about that before you make an arse outta yourself.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:10 a.m. CST

    to be fair, withregards....

    by XTheCrovvX

    Tarantino didn't direct, but he did write both True Romance and Natural Born Killers....those count for two, i think.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:13 a.m. CST

    "Dead Alive: Ups the ante in the zombie genre."

    by Ryalto 3.0

    Uh, no. Dawn of the Dead is the ante and Dead Alive doesn't up shit.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Old Talkbacks

    by chrisd

    It's fun going back and looking at those 4+ year old talkbacks, especially seeing how pathetic my casting choices were! Thanks Harry!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:33 a.m. CST

    Gollum Origin Parody Song

    by SpeakerWiggin

    I wrote and sang this...likes it?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Arwen at Skull Island!

    by Movie Man

    That would rule.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Fun with quotes

    by Ryalto 3.0

    Funny jackson quotes from those articles---- on CGI characters: "I felt any artificial method of creating a character would be an impediment to our bonding with them. They would be a gimmick, rather than a real character." "I know the concept of having to cater to non-readers is frustrating, but it is important. Don't worry - we won't allow it to "dumb-down" the material." "It is true that most of the cuts will come out of the first book. " "We don't want to make any radical changes to the basic events or characters in the books. "Any changes that we do make will be centered on developing characters or events in the spirit that Tolkien created them, " (me: explain aragorn, then) ...does anyone else still feel like they've not really seen too much of 'MASSIVE' at work?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 11:09 a.m. CST

    You're being kidnapped by a giant gorilla. What do you do? WHAT

    by empyreal0

    I guess we get a nice shot of a woman pissing herself in King Kong, don't we?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 11:52 a.m. CST


    by raw_bean

    Massive works so well you didn't even notice it was there - the ultimate achievment for special effects.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 11:57 a.m. CST


    by Manaqua

    Thanks Doc! I do have a multi region player and a projector that does PAL and NTSC. I'm heading there now! Thanks again! M

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:01 p.m. CST


    by Ryalto 3.0

    it's supposed to be software for simulating large scale battle shots with lots of little warriors fighting each other. I can only think of a handful of wide battle shots in all three films. for as much as they talked up this software, i guess I was expecting a little more than a few brief wide shots. ..realted topic, one thing Lucas doesn't get any credit for is that he holds his action shots and lets them breathe, no shaky cam and quick cuts. i wish more directors would let their stuntwork shine like that.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:06 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    You're welcome. Damn, I have to get one of those projectors too...

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Episodes III

    by pvecu

    Of course, GingerTwyt and all the rest. Mr. Kong knows very well Episode III will knockout everyone. WETA gad the chance to access Lucasfilm, Rick McCallum granted them access to their cinematics, so it seems initial coldness between Lucas and Mr. Kong is now froze. And Mr. Kong, smart as he is, could have seen some... footage?

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Peter Jackson - and company

    by Oberon

    It was a fun trip down memory Lane reading those old articles and my comments; remembering warm savor of being one of the 20 questions selected for your response in the first go-round; and wondering deep down whether you could possibly do justice to this unfilmable work that I loved. Well: I also don't know what a "faithful adaptation" is but you got far more of Tolkien up on the screen than I ever expected, and perhaps more importantly you did it in a way that the casual moviegoer would be captured by. Whatever few flaws or things I might have done differently are drowned out by the flood of things that are simply *right* with these films. And you hardly need me to tell you that you and your colleagues have created the blockbuster masterpiece of this generation - a work which, like Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark, will be warming DVD players (or whatever succeeds them) and hearts 20 and 50 years from now. And that's plenty to be proud of.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Mr. Ryalto 3.0

    by Tinuviel70

    The reason you did not notice them is because your head is stuck so far up your anal cavity. Thank you, that is all. Perhaps you should have pulled it out during the Battle of Helm's Deep then you may have noticed. I am only making a kind hearted suggestion but I know that you will respond in a negative fashion as you always do. The truth might be that you absolutely adore these movies but you are, as is said, in denial, yes? Come out of your virtual closet and this lady thinks you might be happier. Also, thank you for wonderful interview Mr. Beaks. Good work, as usual.

  • "Don't make an arse?" What the fuck... seriously... what..... the..... fuck? Jackson didn't say that just because we're all aiming for the third film in a trilogy that you should just sit back and make two shitty films in order to get to the third one. He was merely saying that, unlike a self-contained film experience, a trilogy has to wait until the third film in order to get to the resolution of the story arc. Do you realize that by admitting you're only waiting for the third Star Wars film you are flat out admitting that TPM and AOTC suck major balls? TPM is totally ridiculous and here's why - midichlorins, Jake Lloyd, Natalie Portman talking like a fucking robot, the space battle, NO real interest built up in Darth Maul, the Senate Chamber looks like a cartoon, AWFUL, AWFUL DIALOGUE... I mean, it's not even remotely good dialogue, it'd just be better if you watched the movie with no dialogue, that's how bad the dialogue is, and, on top of that, it's spoken with NO conviction. At least in LOTR the actors work hard to sell you some of the cheesier lines, which... are pretty hard to come by in LOTR. IS THERE ANY FUCKING MOMENT OF INSIGHT IN THE STAR WARS PREQUELS LIKE THESE - Faramir looking upon the dead Easterling?(I don't know every character and race, sue me) in the TT EE and talking to Frodo and Sam about how our enemies are often as vulnerable and just in their cause as we are - Theoden burying his son and saying that no parent should ever have to bury their child - Frodo telling Sam to leave when they're on the stairs in ROTK. I could name a hundred others, but that last one is particularly heartbreaking. Anyone who's been in a similar situation with family or friends, where you feel you've done everything you could possibly do to help them out of kindness and caring, only to have that person turn on you in a moment of weakness or a lack of mental clarity. It's shocking how dead-on that scene is, especially the intense sobbing of Sam. It's the sobbing of hopelessness and having your heart ripped right out of your chest and stepped on. Anyone who's been there knows what I'm talking about. It's not accurate because we've been on those steps climbing up to Shelob's lair, but in the more general aspect, because some of us have been where Sam is with our own friends and families. I felt no such heartbreak or really much of anything except limited excitement over the action in AOTC. No feeling at all when watching TPM... just dumb-founded that Lucas could have made such an abomination. And I used to be the biggest Star Wars fan around. I still love the OT. As much as I love LOTR, I still think Empire Strikes Back is about as perfect as a sci-fi or fantasy film can possibly get outside of 2001. And I even think THAT film has one or two problems that could hurt it's timelessness. Empire has no such problems. It is a perfect movie. Could the third prequel still be good? Yes, I'll concede that. But it won't change the fact that it's been sullied by the horrible TPM and the mediocre AOTC. The REASON so much excitement has built up for ROTK and the reason TT made more money than Fellowship, is because the films actually get better and more people get interested each time. The same thing with the Matrix. The first film was incredible, hence the intense excitement over the sequels. With the Star Wars prequels it was the opposite. They had the built-in audience of... of pretty much the entire world, willing to give their money and their love if the film could just match ANY of the first three films. Even if it was as good as SOME of Return of the Jedi, I'd be happy. And I love Ewoks. I never saw what the big deal was. ROTJ's moments with Vader and Luke and Jabba's scene are amongst the best in the series. All the scenes at Jabba's palace are especially good because we know the characters and care for them so much by now that we're excited to see them get their second wind after the tragic ending of ESB. Do I give a shit what happens to Padme or even really Anakin? Have they given me a reason to care? I cared about Han cause of things like this - "Now what do you think, you think a princess and a guy like me-" and I care about Luke because of his answer - "No". They're human beings not fucking paper cut-outs. There's just enough relief in the characterizations that you can get with them and see yourself in their archetypes. Ahhhh... what's the fucking use? The Prequel zealots are like the 700 club. I've said this before on these TB's too - I WISH I could enjoy them as much as you do. I really do. Only, I seem to see what the majority of people see: a lack of caring and conviction. Thank God for Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings. Otherwise, those damn Star Wars OT laserdics would never get a break.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Jordan Vs. Martin

    by mAlex

    Sorry, Kadence, I have to disagree with you regarding Martin's "Fire and Ice" series. While true that Jordan's books have lost their luster--except for "Winter's Heart"--Martin's are even worse. His fantasy series is essentially a fantasy romance. You complain about Jordan's portrayal of women, and while I won't disagree with you on that, Martin's entire series is like one overblown romance with a few dragons and midget sex scenes thrown in. The men are all written as Hamlet, too torn to act and feeble, while the women are described in ultra-feminie detail. We get hilarious details like the "oiled wooden pillars" and all the fruity smells of incense and blah, blah, blah. Plus, the "slogans" for each House are laughable. "Winter is coming!" And the sex scenes try too hard with eye-rolling results. "Her loins ached." No thanks. Jordan certainly has flaws, and I have begun to dread every book, but Martin is no better.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:48 p.m. CST

    sk909 vs. The Brits.

    by Hexus

    No need for the huge post, the easiest way to tell the Brits is that after telling you to fuck off, they end with "cheers" -

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Say... Didn't this site used to UPDATE every now and then?

    by rev_skarekroe

    Hmmm... sk

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:08 p.m. CST

    time to talk back! yaay!

    by perryfarrell

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:10 p.m. CST

    talk back! because you're a moviegoer with ATTITUDE!! and import

    by perryfarrell

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Return of the King is a triumph!! New York Times -

    by iluvfilm

    Just saw ROTK last night (I finally got a ticket... it

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Great read Harry. That was a comprehensive great read on the hi

    by Rolling_Stone

    Great stuff.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Battle at the Black Gates

    by warp11

    When Aragorn seems almost hypnotized by the Eye, and you hear Aragorn being whispered.... And Aragorn turns and everything is almost silent.... And says this is for Frodo and he runs head long to confront the gathered army. That made the movie for me.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 3:57 p.m. CST

    No good reason to remake King Kong

    by Someguywithaname

    I will hope that Jackson does a radical remake of it--so much so that certain key scenes from the original are not just redone in CG . If that is the case I would have more respect for the project, but after reading his first script, and Jackson's comments on Kong, it sounds pretentious. A CG Kong would have been neat to see ten years ago, but the Jp films and Mighty Joe Young have already spoiled the wow potential for this story. The only thing left would be a fight between ape and giant lizard--and a daylight battle between Kong and airplanes atop the Empire State Building. But are these two scenes worth the bother of remaking the whole film? No way. He could have just as easily produced a short film that recreated the scenes--or done a "making of Kong" story that has dream sequences with a cg Kong. We dont need to see how "real" people would react to a giant ape or dinosaurs--or the reason a real giant ape would take a human all through the jungle. Come on--those are silly excuses to remake it. Maybe if it was Queen Kong you could make a case for surrogate motherhood (i.e. the gorilla Koko with the kitten), otherwise it is just ridiculous. King Kong was far from a perfect film--its main attraction is the novelty of a stop motion ape stomping around jungles and cities. But as a simple story it works quite well, with an unusual main character that the audience should have sympathy for, despite its monstrous un-PC behaviour. Jackson certainly cant claim that he wants to remake it as a homage to the original, because by redoing it, he implies the 33 version isnt good enough for modern audiences. But I'll give him some credit if he keeps the Kong design with the wild eyed spider monkey look, as opposed to just doing a giant gorilla.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Happy Birfday, Miami!

    by elanor

    Enjoy the show! love, elanor

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Happy birfday Miami!

    by morGoth

    Now, where's my present? OK, OK...I'll settle for the hanukah mathom ye grand ninny! Oh yeah, RoTK RAWKED!! Yaaahhh!! ** O the poster who asked how Lumpy, the Lieutenant of Minas Morgul was killed...I don't think he did. Well, I'm sure the Dead Army waxed his ugly mug but I dinna remember seeing it.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Mr. Jackson, if you must remake KONG

    by TimBenzedrine

    You need to hire Frank Frazetta as your art director. What makes the original so memorable is not just the giant ape, but the amazing fantasy jungle settings that were designed by Mario Langarra(sp?) and Byron Crabbe. The same way that your art director for LOTR helped keep the look of Tolkien's world consistant, You need a fantasy illustrator to make Skull Island come alive. (and you ought to have him start designing your John Carter film as well.)

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Next Fantasy Novel Series....

    by SIlvermane

    ....probably should be George R.R. Martin's "Ice and Fire" series. Someone in an earlier post mentioned that it was just one step above some sort of romance novel... If you believe that then I've got some more news for you...YOU ARE A MORON. Those books were perhaps THE best fantasy READS that I've had in my life. Best book? would be the comprehensive LOTR. Best READ...hell yeah. Fucking awesome. Lay off Martin...he may be a fat, lazy slob who publishes a novel every 4 years but he's a good writin' fat, lazy slob. Thanks for playing.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Peter Jackson is a talentless twat!!

    by ButtonMan

    After the matrix:boredom comes this!! TLOTR: The fellowship of Dicks The Two Dicks The Return of the Dickless!! Stupid movies!!! Go and make Braindead 2!! Stupid fatass bearded monster!! Go and eat all the pies!! And your king kong movie will be even more stupid! You don't need a man in the suit or CGI,you can cast yourself as king kong!!(you have more hair!!)

  • I would have said the same thing before Return of the King, but there was a moment during the film that I changed my mind. When Gollum has his arm around Frodo and is telling him that Sam is soon going to ask for the ring, for some reason, I just snapped out of it for a second because of some jagoff kicking the seats, and when I turned back to look at the screen I realized - Holy Shit, that's CG. In TT, there were a few visible seams here and there with Gollum and the Ents, but in ROTK, I don't think I thought of Gollum as CG once, except for that one time when I snapped out of it and then realized that the character looked as though he could not possibly have been put into the scene after the shooting. The lighting, textures, and interactions were just flawless. So, I still think a CG gorilla can be done better, although dinosaurs have been done as well as they can be done in the first JP with the T-Rex attack scene, still one of the top three examples of the best CG/live-action integration. The story of King Kong, however, is going to be difficult to sell as a 'realistic' film. Who knows though? Maybe Jackson will have us all sobbing like babies when he falls off the Empire State Building and dies(did that need a spoiler warning?). Also - how long before anyone mentions that it's too close to 9/11 to see Kong inevitably sending planes crashing into buildings? I personally don't give a fuck. No disrespect, but it's fantasy and it was around long before 9/11, so I hope we don't hear that kind of shit.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Kong destruction

    by Rupee88

    Good point about the "serious distruction", but I think 9/11 ruined good trashing of cities for a decade or two. Maybe he will kill some people, but they will probably want to keep this movie "kid-friendly", so you probably won't even see King Kong squash or step on anyone....that is totally unrealistic and LAME!

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 8:15 p.m. CST

    In regards to WoT...

    by Dragonfire

    I'd say it died on the fifth book. The first two would make cool movies, though the beginning of the first one was very similar to the beginning of FOTR, what with the rider cloaked in black and all. There are so many great fantasy novels that could be made into movies though. Maybe LOTR will give this genre the respect it deserves.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 8:43 p.m. CST

    next best thing

    by batmasher

    I kind of meant "what will be the next (chronologically)" cool fanatsy attempt for good or bad reasons. I mean, a better book that is lesser known or miles apart in nature from LOTR might not be next because studios won't back it. I agree The 1st WoT book starts similar to FOTR but I gotta see a halfman on screen with the cloak that is unaffected by wind. Seeing an army torn apart by the one power would be nice. And a flashback to the breaking of the world might go over well. I loved the Narnia books but they are definately aimed at the younger crowd and the first book won't make a movie; Neither will A Horse and His Boy.

  • Dec. 19, 2003, 9:49 p.m. CST

    People,Take Up Tolkiens's Battle Cry

    by OldManWillow

    Some wars are worth to fight against enslavement...People of the world,rise up and fight against the neo-con-facists.They are enslaving us,and to fight against them is surely a worthy cause.They corrupt our values,making everything into a matter of profit,and they the big winners.We are nothing but consumers to them.They do cut down the trees to make factories,change hard won ecological laws for the profit of a few and loss of the rest:loss of forests,loss of beauty,loss of environmental equilibrium,loss of wheather patterns,loss of health....Tolkien foresaw these Saurons of the big multinacionals/political parties.Is that not the message of his books,to recognize evil and stand up to it?People in the the states,the least you can do is to kick this cynical mafia out of your government.What happens in the states affects the whole rest of the world.The states could have become the moral leader of the world,and maybe if people fight for what is right,it still can.Instead of playing the same rotten game of the old imperial powers of Europe,using dictators and corrupt and violent systems for their own benefit...Imagine,we could be living in harmony like the hobbits do.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 12:13 a.m. CST

    I loved The Return of the King

    by RowanM

    I saw it on wednesday afternoon 1.10pm. I had been drinking the night before and I was a little hungover. I arrived with 20 minutes to spare. I figured I had lost out on any good seat. There was no queue. I couldn't believe it. Found a good seat amongst strangers. Two mates of mine were sitting two rows in front of me. I knew they would be there but I didn't want to sit with them because I knew I was going to be an emotional wreck at the end of this. Gotta keep my composure. I had also smoked a reefer before I left the house. I had my left hand resting on the side of my face. I didnt want the guy next to me seeing a grown man cry. What can I say? Tears were rolling and I didn't care. SPOILER WARNING............I've only seen it once but the one image that has stuck in my head more than any other scene is the look of pure exstacy on Gollum's face as he falls to his death. He finally got his precious back. That was really moving for me. Howard Shore's score really helped nail that scene. Congratulations Peter Jackson on a fantastic job. You and the entire crew have really made me a happy man. Special credit too to Howard Shore's score. I've been humming The Isengard theme for the longest time. I don't see myself stopping any time soon. You're a gifted man. Cheers...

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Reply batmasher

    by Dragonfire

    Yeah, a lot of the things from the first few WoT books would be awesome to see on screen, like the breaking of the world. What was that mist again in Shadar Logoth or something? That would be awesome, and the ways as well with that thing that ate souls. The coolest thing to see though would probably be that fight between Rand and Ishmael at the end of the second book, in the sky with the army fighting below them. Thing is though that adapting those books would have the same problems adapting fellowship had, as they're all journeys with one fight of some kind after another, which works fine in the book but not as well for mainstream film audiences. It would also need high age restriction probably. WoT is the darkest fantasy I've ever read. Heh, I think Dominic Monahagan would have been the perfect cast for Mat. I wouldn't be as excited about Narnia movies though. They never got me when I was a kid, the way they seem to have gotten so many other kids. I always preferred the LOTR kind of epic fantasy.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Narnia would not be the best series to do...

    by SIlvermane

    I've heard a bunch of people saying that The Chronicles of Narnia would be great books to see as movies. I absolutely LOVED those books. When I was 6. I loved the Lord of the Rings stuff when I was 6 too. The difference IS that I STILL love LOTR because I'm a grown up and it's a grown up book. Narnia is not. Go ahead and make it if, like someone else said, you're looking to make another Harry Pooter. Let's get some more serious fantasy made here to make the genre a little more accepted and appreciated and not just make all these little-kid fantasy stories to make a fucking buck. Child-fantasy has been being made FOREVER. It's called DISNEY. Let's get rid of the kiddy garbage and concentrate on hard-hitting serious fantasy for serious fantasy lovers. By the way, I don't know if any of you moron Narnia lovers ever figured this out but none of you has mentioned that you know that a major part of the Narnia serious was a parallel to Christianity. We have enough organized religion in this world that we don't need to be making movies in a genre that has NOTHING to do with "real" religion. Stupid stupid stupid. They can make those movies but IF they make them IN THE PLACE of some other GREAT sci-fi or fantasy novels then these movie conglomerates are much bigger morons than I thought. Also, one final note on the Wheel of Time. If you guys think that they would actually make a movie based on a series that has 47 billion books like that series does...forget it. There would be NO closure because you'd have to either wade through 10 fucking sequals or compress everything into 3 movies and make it suck even more than those books do already. Peace. Dummies.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 3:37 p.m. CST

    Thanks Silvermane

    by batmasher

    for the insults and negativity. I guess your right there's no way to make a movie out of an epic fantasy(WoT) LOTR case in point. There's no way they could film in color. There's no way to pause live TV. There's no way the earth is round...we're all dummies.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 3:52 p.m. CST

    We waded through 20 007 movies

    by batmasher

    And aren't the Rings fans holding their piss for 3.5 hrs and left yearning for more? I think you could make money on about 5 WoT movies. Eye of the World would hook alot of people. And by the way I started with the idea of making these stories BETTER so the argument that they're not good enough is accepted. I just wish it was much easier and cheaper to make a movie; that way if I'm in a severe majority (1/100) that like a story, it could still be made. Maybe when CGI is good enough to pass off human characters who don't need paychecks or direction. I could watch 4 hr movies with battles every 30 minutes and the people who don't want to see them can watch their romance fantasy movies, or whatever. And I'm not saying get rid of traditional film, just add a new medium.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Minority I mean!!:)

    by batmasher

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 4:47 p.m. CST

    by Grimlok_Pesci

    Return of the King was incredible. THe part that moved me the most (besides the Gray Havens, you'd have to be a damn robot not to be emotional at that scene) was Theoden's speech to the Rohirrim. I'm not really sure why it got to me so much, but man, did it ever. The only thing I kinda didn't like was Denethor's death. Did he have to leap off the precipice like that? I felt it was a bit ridiculous. oh yeah, and Grond FUGGIN RULED!!!! I totally believe that Kong will kick major ass. 2005 is shaping up to be a great year for geeks. Also, I wish to God someone would make a 4 film adaptation of the Once and Future King, probably my favorite book of all time. I'm also really looking forward to the His Dark Materials films, if you haven't read the books, you should really check them out. Its kind of "young adult" - ish, but a mindblowing epic, nonetheless. Also, does anyone know anything about plans to make live action Chronicles of Prydain flicks? I LOVED those books as a kid, and Disney's Black Cauldron, while not really terrible, just doesn't cut it for me.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 8:28 p.m. CST

    ooooooh, Lloyd Alexander....

    by djinnj

    Now why didn't I think of that! I would LOVE to see Taran Wanderer made into a film. Mmmm, the Pryddain Chronicles....

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 9:18 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    I find it very ironic that you're insulting "childish" books in the vein of C.S. Lewis' works and then, to display your sophistication, refer to Rowling's kiddie series as "Harry Pooter." Tee-hee!

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 9:26 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    I think they should hold off on making, or at least aggressively pursuing, the "Wheel of Time" series for at least another 20 years or so. Here's why (and this logic may be a bit spotty, but what is talkback but an expression of opinion?; bear with me): as with Lord of the Rings, it would be best if a generation of young minds who grew up on the book and enjoyed success (as Peter, Fran, Alan Lee, John Howe and WETA Digital had already) who may bring to the table an adolescence's worth of ideas and various interpretations. Plus the CGI would be better.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Serious Fantasy

    by daughter of time

    Interestingly, many of the 20th century's most influential books were fantasies or speculative fiction of one kind or another - most of them authored by men who either fought in the trenches of WWI or served as ambulance drivers, amd who sought through this means to come to grips with their very real experience of evil. These works include not only "The Lord of the Rings," but "Animal Farm" and "1984." In fact, if you remove the ridiculous prejudice at the very idea that a particular form of the novel is any less adult than any other, the fantasy novel has been a vehicle for addressing some of the most important issues of our times, political, moral, and spiritual.

  • Dec. 20, 2003, 11:25 p.m. CST

    Oops. That wasn't a complete sentence

    by Ribbons

    What I meant to say was "Who may bring to the table an adolescence's worth of ideas and inventions were given a chance to collect the interpretations of the story kicking around in their heads." Now it's a run-on sentence, but at least I plowed my way through to the finish line. By the way, I agree with DoT about fantasy being relevant. 'X-Men,' for example, introduces kids to tolerance quite effectively, and certainly more so than reading the biography of Anthony Johnson at a young age. Real news and history should be consumed and reflected upon in conjunction with fantasy, but the expression of ideas is never wrong, and let's face it, most "real" movies are fantastical, anyway. I'm not promoting the absence of realistic movies, simply saying that if they can nab Oscars, so can unapologetic fantasies.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 4:23 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    I don't recall daughter of time saying "stop watching the news, read fantasy instead." It is actually possible to do both, you ignorant pill.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 10:06 a.m. CST


    by batmasher

    I guess I could handle a 20 year wait for WoT; just hope I'm still around! One of the interesting things about Narnia (although not unprecedented) is that there is a link with the "real" world. The kids go from our reality to Narnia so you witness them having to come to the understanding that the white witch is real enough to end their life in that and our world. Reepacheep could be a tough character to pull off even with CGI; you'd have to have that mouse bound up the baddies and slice a throat or something! And yes I know its a Christian allegory, but I also know it was written for all those kids who were sent to stay with grandparents or other relatives in the country while London and other major cities were being bombed by the luftwaffe(sp) and their daddies were shipping off to war. (Not that kids in that situation were reading it then, but that's probably what the real reason was that those characters were visiting their crazy uncle or whoever the guy was that owned the wardrobe). I think because of that its a worthwhile work of escapism to check out.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 12:27 p.m. CST

    What is serious, then?

    by daughter of time

    So something that "won't stop racism, war, the weather, drug addiction, mental illness, etc." isn't serious.... Since nothing I can think of will do any of the above, I would be very curious to know what YOU think is serious, by your own definition. Or I could posit that even if Tolkien isn't serious (by this very arbitrary test), he is still adult, profound, thought-provoking on many topics, and well worth any reader's time.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 12:34 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Since daughter of time was defending the idea of fantasy literature having the potential to be serious, your post was directed to her as well, albeit indirectly, since you went for the softer target. "it hasn`t and will NOT stop racism, war, the weather, drug addiction, mental illness, etc." That's really perceptive. I suppose there isn't anything serious in the world since none of those problems have been solved yet. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what types of literature CAN solve those problems? Get over yourself.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 1:50 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    (read carefully) I never said literature has never changed humanity or history. I merely called you on what forms of literature have the capacity to solve the problems you (rightly) said fantasy literature couldn't do. This consequently begs the question (again) -- are those the only criteria you have for serious literature? That it can solve all of those problems you listed? The world must be quite the shallow, non-profound place to you since we're all still wrestling with those problems.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...we do agree on the matter of literature affecting people for the better on a "grand scale" in terms of bettering man's lot through empathy -- or rather how it hasn't. However, my criteria for what I consider to be serious literature don't start and stop with how it advances our development as a species. The two titles you mentioned previously only caused more problems rather than solved them. And if the unanswered question you're referring to is what great fantasy literature is it that's bettered man, then there is no answer, because I don't believe any has. But, like I stated -- I don't believe that's what necessarily qualifies literature as "serious." And I'm not defending Silvermane. I'm defending the notion of some fantasy literature as belonging within the realm of "serious" without having ended world hunger or war to be so.

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 6:06 p.m. CST


    by brassmonkey48

    :::::We have enough organized religion in this world that we don't need to be making movies in a genre that has NOTHING to do with "real" religion. :::::: I love the Narnia books, and I'm fully aware that they are a christian allegory. What does the genre of fantasy have to do with, if not expressing ideas and stories about anything from religion to the world, or whatever? You could say fantasy has NOTHING to do with Tolkein's themes if you wanted to, but you'd be a moron. Fantasy can be about anything. I love it when people can't just believe what they want to believe, instead they are so afraid of God or religion or whatever, that they go on a rampage against the sharing of any ideas that are contrary to their own. Freethinkers indeed.

  • What do you do with something like Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? One is relatively new and one is old. Neither was written in the genre of 'fantasy' if we are considering the genre to be defined by bookstore shelving decisions. Of course, a lot of bookstores can't tell the difference between science fiction (another abused genre title) and fantasy. Still, if you try to think up a comprehensive list of criteria for how fantasy differs from other genres, you're going to turn up a lot of stuff that fits more than one genre, and a lot of stuff that doesn't properly fit. It has nothing to do with the quality of the writing, its relevance to the world's troubles, or its ability to educate. It's just a lable, folks!

  • Dec. 21, 2003, 11:34 p.m. CST


    by djinnj

    we're over in ***66!

  • Dec. 22, 2003, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Hey FrankCobretti

    by Beddy Sidious

    Sunday night has come and gone. What the fuck?

  • Dec. 22, 2003, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Here it is, Aetius450

    by FrankCobretti

    PP First, let

  • Dec. 22, 2003, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Oh, and Beddy Sidious

    by FrankCobretti

    Bugger off.

  • Dec. 22, 2003, 2:55 p.m. CST

    here we go again

    by Malebolgia

    the fucking doubters, when you see the first glimpse of King Kong you are all gonna jump right back on his New Zealand bred COCK!!!

  • Dec. 23, 2003, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Aye dios mio....

    by SIlvermane

    Okay. "Harry Pooter"...."pooter" in "vagina"...not as in "mispelling"... "goddamn it".

  • June 4, 2010, 3:05 p.m. CST

    oh sure

    by ScorchedTBurntLembas

    Tinuviel70 is a lady~ right~ just like I'm JRRT. Don't forget to drink your douchebag juice to wash down your turd lembas.