Cool News
About that 'art' on THE LORD OF THE RINGS site!
Hello folks, I got this from a pal in the merry land of Weta, and figured you folks would like the additional information that was provided herein! In case you haven't seen these 'COMPOSITES' I figured you'd appreciate a link! So, here it is! Click Here!
FYI- The images are composites done by Weta, not production art...of
course they do incorparate the designs of the Production, but they show
Miniatures, armour ....and of course the single frames cant show you
Massive in motion, and the CG soldier models are temp versions.
Anyway, thought you should know about Weta's involvment in this work!
-
+ Expand All
-
Watching those images over and over again makes me more and more confident that PJ is on the right track ...
And oh yes I was first ... :) -
Oh. I hope the production art isn't too far from those nine pictures, because they are so exquisite I can barely tear my gaze from them. I'm not sure how to feel about WETA's little statement.
-
Isn't it obvious that those images are composites? Duh.
-
"Lord of the Rings" doesn't have the movie market cornered on fantasy films... "Dungeons & Dragons" the movie is in production and, while perhaps not as ambitious as interpreting JRR Tolkien's work, they did manage to get Jeremy Irons to play the bad guy, lending credibility to the project... could it be that cool fantasy films will finally be mainsteam?
-
The pictures are fab! Congrats to Weta on such a fine job so far!
Cheers!
Joram
http://ringbearer.org -
Several months ago Peter Jackson called Dwarves "dwarfs" and everybody thought I was nit-picking to point it out. Now, on the official web site, they've mis-spelled Gandalf "Gandolf." Of course, you don't read a movie, you watch it, so I can see why people think this isn't a big deal. But how can you read a book like The Lord of the Rings and mis-spell Gandalf's name? These mistakes may *spell* disaster for the film as an adaptation of the book. They indicate a casual reading; but Tolkien's story was not casually written. At the very least, such errors lead me to suspect that we're in for abominable pronunciation of the names of people and places. Tolkien's use of language is one of the main reasons his world seems so compelling. If they can't even spell the names correctly, how can we hope that they'll bother to show the pronunciation key (in the back of the book) to the actors reading lines? Those of us who know the story may be in for a lot of cringing as we listen to the dialogue.
Regarding the recent rumors about the casting of Frodo, do I need to point out that the character is a grown-up Hobbit? Signing a teen-ager for that part is totally inappropriate. -
I was wondering if they were paintings with some CGI, or paintings with photography, or all CGI. But unfortunately I have no idea what composite means. Does that mean it's a combo of figurines and CGI? All CGI? Figurines and models and no CGI? What? I don't understand your crazy moon language! Anyway, whatever the hell it is, photo, screen capture, blahdeblah, they are beautiful. The two that stabbed me in my heart were the Arwen and Aragorn still, and the Argonath ones. Whew! Damn, thems is perty! BTW, did anyone notice that in the Helm's Deep Battle one they are sticking VERY CLOSELY to Alan Lee's painting of the Battle? Mucho Bueno! I just can't wait to see Treebeard. My geek synapses have been firing non-stop since that website was up! Hey everyone! Only 700 or so days left! Woohoo! -CG
-
Dammit man! If everything else in the movie is spot on perfect, are you really gonna spit and fume over the pronunciation. If everything rocks, I wouldn't really give a flying dingleberry if they say "Saw-ron" or "Sour-on," or "Fang-orn" or "Fan-gorn" or "Fan- gyorn." Geeks have justified grosser fuck ups in sci-fi films for generations. It's practically a tradition! I'd rather they do that than fuck up the story or the visuals. So some web designer who had never heard of the books screwed up. Big deal. I'd rather have PJ pay attention to making the frikin' movie, than to some frikin' (sorry about the use of frikin'; I just saw Austin Powers and it rocked) typo on the first frikin' rev of the frikin' web page! Throw him a bone, people! Anyway, I guess I just don't understand how you can go see those mindblowing pics, notice a typo, and then start screaming bloody murder about the production quality. It's like going to a five star restaurant, noticing that the valet has a zit on his nose, then start worrying about the food. -CG
-
Yes, the "Gandolf" thing is utter BULLSHIT and should be changed ASAP, but if you read the other things PJ has put out, Gandalf is spelled correctly. I think it was the angry monkey dat kant spel fur shit....also the images look SUPERB, I think what this guy is saying is that it is going to look "even better".....wow, this is going to be an epic......
-
OK, I knew you guys weren't gonna like my comments about mis-spelling and mis-pronouncing Tolkien's names. I guess it's really this simple: I don't think The Lord of the Rings *can* be adapted to film, and therefore (respecting the book and the author) I don't think it *should* be. Personally, I think STAR WARS is the closest thing to a cinematic realization of the themes in The Lord of the Rings. That is, The Lord of the Rings and STAR WARS have many common sources in art and myth. It's great to read The Lord of the Rings, and it's great to watch STAR WARS. Making a Tolkien movie, however, is like writing a STAR WARS novel: it's a mistake in the first place, an indiscriminate lack of appreciation for the different aesthetic elements and psychological principles that make good books and good movies. The Lord of the Rings is a particularly good book; STAR WARS is a particularly good cinematic saga. STAR WARS novels, while some people may enjoy reading them, have nothing to do with STAR WARS and generally suck as adaptations of Lucas's story. For the same reasons, The Lord of the Rings movies may turn out to be enjoyable fantasy films, but they are bound to suck as adaptations of Tolkien's story. I'd be happy if someone like Jackson made an original swords & sorcery movie, but it's painful to anticipate that people who have never read Tolkien's book will see the films and think it's a valid surrogate. It *won't* be. Consider: if you met someone who had never seen STAR WARS, would you hand him the novelization?
-
What's the deal with that? I know I should hate South Park (IT'S SOOOOO STUPID!) But it can actually be pretty funny...sometimes...how on earth did they do "Babylon 5?" I've actually only seen South Park three or four times.
-
I can't believe this has started again. We are about to finally see a worthwhile adaptation of Lord of the Rings and a spelling nazi is whining about spelling again. Didn't I see this guy on the Simpsons? It's this kind of obsession to meaningless detail that gives geeks and net users a bad name. The production art (Composites) are incredible. A crew of 100s and a cast of 1000s are involved on this project at the cost of $millions. Just because months ago, PJ slipped and used correct English (rather than repeating what was originally a Tolkien error) does not spell disaster. Are things going to be letter perfect? No. That is what happens in the process of adaptation. Some things that work on paper, do not work on screen. I'm sure there will be much more egregious errors that don't agree with everyone's personal interpretation of LOTR, but I really don't think we are looking at another Dune. We should sit back and enjoy the beautiful images that are being produced and judge the film when it comes out. I'm not insulting you, personally. All I'm saying is, sit back and relax. They are finally making the damn movie and waited until they could do it right.
-
Hmm. It seems like the New Line web-people are paying attention. It
-
I don't mean to be too insulting or anything, but shit man! If you think the movies are going to suck, then don't frikin' watch them, let alone repeatedly visit a website devoted to covering the latest little crap about the movies. Likewise, don't read the Star Wars novelizations if you think they lack the distinctiveness they need to be Star Wars (I've only read part of a New Hope (when I was little) and the Timothy Zahn books). I wasn't impressed so I don't read the waterfall of crap being written about Star Wars. However, I think LOTR has the potential to be a fantastic film, given who's making it (a fan, with the help of many other fans). And by the way, Tolkien thought they might make good films to. He didn't even remotely consider them sacred tomes that shouldn't be adapted or (gasp!) slightly changed in any way. He was even prepared to have a crap film version of the books made as long as they paid him enough. I just don't understand why you bother torturing yourself by checking up on the progress of the movie, if you think it's impossible for it to be anything other than a disaster. Why not spend your time doing something your enjoy instead? Like spending time with a loved one, or finding a cure for cancer. No one's holding a gun to your head to make you visit this site or go to the movies (well I guess someone could be holding a gun to your head... but I'll just assume your fine...). The rest of us geeks will be busy revelling. -CG
-
The images look awesome. well I'm excited about lotr. I can only hope that they're making them for grownups not kids. ie. no poop jokes.
p.s. yeah freca why did you visit the official web site if you think the project is inherently flawed. -
The spelling of dwarfs instead of dwarves in a twenty questions e-mail, which he was kindly taking his valuable time to answer for fans, doesn't really scare me. I agree, to a point, about the importance of correct spelling and pronounciation in this film, as the use of words and language was very important to Tolkien, but it is a little early to start worrying about such things. If we see (or hear) a lot of mistakes well into production, then start to worry. Finally, if you think that it is impossible to adapt this story to film, then why are you concerned at all? It would be different if you thought it was possible, and didn't want them to mess it up. These films being made won't damage the integrity of the original book, and shouldn't threaten your enjoyment of them. Just ignore the films. To the poster that said Tolkien would have let them make crap versions of the movie if they paid him enough. Where the hell do you get that from? Is that why it has been almost impossible for anyone to get the rights to make LOTR movies, including Lucas, who tried in the eighties? Tolkien didn't treat the books like holy texts, but he did care about them, you know. And this caring has luckily stayed within his estate after his passing.
-
According to Humphrey Carpenter's TOLKIEN: A BIOGRAPHY (hardcover ed., p.226) Tolkien and his publisher "agreed upon their policy: eitheer a respectable 'treatment' of the book, or else a good deal of money...the choice eas between 'cash or kudos'. So yes, Tolkien was quite concerned about quality (see THE LETTERS OF J.R.R. TOLKIEN for further details) but apparently was ready to sell at the right price, depite his dislike of Disney-style fantasies. After all, didn't his estate allow Rankin Bass to adapt THE HOBBIT and THE RETURN OF THE KING? And I don't recall the estate protesting Bakshi's flawed LORD OF THE RINGS film either. $ is $.
-
I really hope these movies really turn out well,im a fan of both PJ and LOTR but what happens if the first LOTR movie dosent do well finacely.How will that affect the other two.
I mean im not questioning PJ'S ability i just dont think that enough people in the general movie going public likes or gives a damn about the FANTASY genre.
Besides SW there has not been alot of good fantasy films and the only reason that SW worked was because of all the cool tech and ships and shit like that.But i do think that no matter how good the movie may be(special effects,story,acting)i just dont see alot of joe schomes going to see it, and if they do how many will be able to fully appreciated or will say "its alright,too much shit going on" or something assine like that!We shall see,GOOD LUCK PJ!!!Lets see how it turns out -
I'm not sure where I heard this, but isn't there an Elven-linguist working with the crew? What I mean is, I have a feeling that some one is tutoring the production team with the languages of the Elves in LotR. If this is true (and I haven't just dreamed it) I'm confident that they won't ineptly mispronounce any of the other words that might makes us Geeks cringe. I keep saying this: have a little faith! It looks promising so far, though very little has been revealed.
-
First of all, SW is no longer a trilogy.
So, on that fact alone, we can no longer compare LotR to the six movies of Star Wars.
I can remember the days when I wouldn't know a movie was coming out until the promos started running. In those days, I wouldn't have to spend years worrying about whether or not of movie would turn out good or bad.
But, thanks to the internet, we know what is coming, and can start worrying years in advance.
I urge all of you to turn back your time clocks! Save yourself a heartattack or high blood pressure! Stop worrying about these films(Lotr and SW). They are being made, so be happy for that fact alone. Better someone tries to make them and fails than no one trying at all, right? If they suck, they'll suck. If their good, they'll be good, but nothing any of you can do can change it.
Imagine if GL decided to stop with ROTJ and PJ decided to quit on Lotr. The only trilogy we could probably hope for would be the final "chapter" to the Scream movies and maybe another Ghostbusters.
Aren't you glad that we at least have these movies to look forward to?!! Without them, I'd say the future movie line ups seem pretty bleak to me. -
The zit on that Valet's nose always makes me wanna puke.... To all those fearing for the LOTR movies,rest assured.It has CGI eye candy and action scenes for the 'non discriminating viewers'(joe shmoes to you), ,Academy award nominated writers for the plot and characterisation,a large fan base for support and established literary fame.Perhaps a subplot of alove story for the 'sugar and spice crowd".
-
One ring to rule them all. One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.... I don't know why they chose dwarven runes to say that. Easier to read for the common folk, I guess; the Elven characters being known only to a few... (sarcasm... which is probably only funny to me because I'm frikin' exhausted.) Which gives me an idea for a parody of the LOTR movie - have words run up the screen like in Star Wars, but in dwarven runes... Goodnight everybody. -CG
-
Gentlemen, Gentlemen..
At least the upcoming adaptation(s) will look a hellava lot better than that misbegotten, unmissed Ralph Bakshi abomination. -
As we all no, the mis-pronounciation must be PJ:s fault, since he fires up his HTML-software to make a little homepage in his sparetime...
Like he's got nothing else to do. -
Hey!
Thats fucking friggin -
Just as an FYI, I don't know for certain that he was the /original/ purchaser, but Saul Zaentz -- semi-infamous music/movie producer -- has owned the LoTR movie rights FOREVER. He was a producer for the Bakshi/Rankin-Bass animated films, and he's a producer this time around as well. The Tolkien estate really has very little to say at this point; PJ inviting Christopher Tolkien's input is an *enormously* generous courtesy, and a tremendously positive sign.
-
You guys complain that they spelled Gandalf's name wrong on the official site? Heck, it was probably some web designer who got some handwritten notes, but who has never read the LOTR himself, but certainly NOT someone who is involved in the production. What you should really be complaining about are so called Tolkien-fans who can't even spell the name "Tolkien", like about 50% of the people here. I wonder how someone can try to tell Peter Jackson how to do his job without even knowing how to spell that name? Heck, it even took Harry, who is supposedly such a big "Tolkein fan" (I typoed here on purpose) months to figure out how to spell that name right. Just search the site for "Tolkein" and see for yourself. That's what ticks me off, not if some intern at New Line who's never touched the LOTR misspells a name due to someone's bad handwriting.
-
I checked the Internet Movie Database. While Zaentz is listed as a producer of the Bakshi film, he does not seem to have been associated with the two Rankin Bass productions. The question still remains why the Tolkien estate thought Zaentz was worthy of owning the rights in the first place.
-
Those pictures, especially mordor and the Kings of Argonoth, ROCK!
Just one question:
WHAT THE HELL IS A COPMPOSITE?
Theank you for your time. -
A "composite" is when you take traditional photography, paintings and/or drawings, and artwork constructed on the computer and...(drum roll, please)....slap 'em all together digitally.
-
Thanks!
-
The spelling errors have been with Lord of the Rings since Tolkien sent his final manuscript to the printers. It has only been within the last few years that all the errors (well, most of them) have been weeded out. So I'll forgive the WEB page designer for goofing on Goodgulf, er...I mean Gandalf. And most actors that I've seen in interviews that occaisionaly discuss accents and pronunciation, usually say that they try very hard to pronounce things correctly. If Jackson has hired some one versed in Sindarin and other languages, and if Christopher Tolkien is involved, I think we will not have to worry about such things. And I agree that any one who has already relegated this movie to the trash heap is only torturing himself (and us too!), by posting his negative views about a film that hasn't even been filmed. In all fairness, I too have my doubts about whether the book can be successfully adapted to the screen without changing it too much. But, Hollywood has a long and controversial history of making popular books into movies. Some are almost verbatum the book, and are still awful. Some retain the title, but other than that do not resemble the book, but are quite good. And vice-versa. Stephen King's novella, The Body became "Stand By Me", the biggest change being the location. The "Andromeda Strain" was another almost perfect adaptation. Mary Poppins was made much younger than the books, but still done well. But I am inclined to think that Tolkien's book is a bit different. It's a VERY long story, with a great deal of background history thrown in so that we can understand who Aragorn is, and Sauron and Gandalf and others. In most stories it isn't important to know what happened a thousand years in the past so that you'll understand the present situation. We don't know how Jackson will handle this. Will he ignore the past, or use it, as did Tolkien, to give depth and reality to Middle-Earth? Will he actually film some scenes of the earlier history for us? That would be awesome. I can picture Aragorn telling the story of Beren and Luthien and the screen fading to the actual events. But that's asking a bit too much, since there is so much else to film. But my biggest concern is the "feel" or "flavor" (as I call it) of the film. Will it make us FEEL the way we did when we read the book? Will Jackson be able to capture that ephemeral "spirit" of the book that cannot be described or filmed, though some films do capture it. But the films that capture such indescribable emotions (for lack of a better term), are usually done by the BEST writers and directors and cinematographers, or once in a while by a young recent graduate of the USC Film School, like George Lucas when he made "American Graffitti". Lucas captured the feel or the essence of an era, recognizable to those of us who used to "cruise" the strip or "drag" or whatever term you older guys called your main strip were you drove your car checking out the girls and visitng with friends. So, I have HOPE that Jackson will be able to pull this epic production off. I WANT him to succeed. Now some one said that it doesn't matter if the film sucks. Those of us who love the book will still love the book, and the book will still be a masterpiece. My concern is not for US. YES, we'll still love the book and still post messages on the net about it. The folks I'm concerned about are the ones who might have read the book, but saw a poor film adaptation and decided NOT to read it. Some one asked what would happen if the film flops financially at the boxoffice. Well, as I understand it, New Line is committed to all three films irregardless. Not only that, but one of the reasons for filming LOTR rather than say an original fantasy adventure is because it's easier to get financed for a well book, than it is for an unknown original script (no matter how good the script might be). There is a ready made audience for this film. And I'm sure that even folks who have never heard of LOTR will be lured in if the ad campaign is done properly. But even if it fails at the boxoffice, there is still video sales. I know I'll at least rent it once, especially if new scenes are added. If I LIKE the film, I'll buy it. And then there's the money that HBO and other premium channels pay for the right to show films. And then there's commercial TV. So even a film that does badly at the boxoffice can still make a profit. And we haven't even mentioned overseas ticket sales. So, I want Jackson to do the very best that he can. Make this THE film event of the century, as the advertising people are already calling it. I suggested that they use the phrase "The Book of the Century is Now the Film of the Millenium!" I don't know whether or not they'll use my idea or not. At any rate, for those of you who still have hope that this can be a great film, keep after Jackson to let him know what we will accept, and what we will NOT. Arwen wielding sword? Not in the book. Some one called it a contradiction to the book, but that's not quite accurate. For the most part we don't know what ARwen did when she wasn't with Aragorn. So if Jackson does a bit of speculating, I can live with it if it's not over done. Let's face it, about all we know that Arwen did while Aragorn was "adventuring" was sewing a flag. Other than that, and the brief "Tale" in the appendix, we don't see much of Arwen, and yet she is very important as a catalyst for Aragorn's actions. So if you want to be a complete purist and only show Arwen sitting around sewing a flag (and that wasn't even "shown" in the book), then be my guest. Frankly, I think Arwen getting a bit more screen time and maybe an heroic deed will enhance her as an individual. Now normally I wouldn't be so kind to such changes. And if I detect "political correctness" (which this may be on Jackson's part), I'm even more unforgiving. But I think having Arwen just sitting around worrying about her "man" and sewing a flag would be unfair to her true character and boring. And as for the part of Frodo being given to a teenager, it easier to make a young person look older than to make an old person look younger. When we first meet Frodo, I believe he's still in his "tweens". So a teenager in the part is not unusual. And then to have him age ten years or so by the time he actually begins his adventure won't that difficult. By the time these three films are done he may be that much older anyway. :) At least it won't be like watching a 14 year old Shirley Temple playing the part of a 6 year old. Or a 35 year old Karate Kid. But I'm willing to wait and see.
-
I'm glad so many of you like the 9 pics. Coz I'm in the first one. I didn't realise they were going to be on Newlines LOTR website, so I got a real buzz when I came accross them by mistake
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Baz's THE GREAT GATSBY explodes with one helluva dazzling trailer! -- 171 total posts 154 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 141 total posts 141 posts
- UPDATED!!! A Six-Pack Of New Character Posters For THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Forecast A Lot Of Gotham Rain And Snow!! -- 265 total posts 129 posts
- Who Is The Voice Of Batman In WB's Animated Two Part THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS? -- 129 total posts 129 posts
- Cats Beware!! An ALF Movie May Soon Come Our Way... -- 126 total posts 126 posts
- Zach Galifianakis Is Ignatius J. Reilly? -- 81 total posts 81 posts
- AICN COMICS REVIEWS: INCREDIBLE HULK! DANGER CLUB! CLiNT 2.1! JAMES BOND! BATMAN INC.! AND MORE!!! -- 62 total posts 62 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day… the horror… the horror… -- 45 total posts 45 posts
- Quint has seen Andrew Dominik's crime thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY starring Brad Pitt! Cannes 2012! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- The Next Season Of DOCTOR WHO Was Delayed To Fall Just To Build Anticipation?? -- 68 total posts 38 posts