John Boorman's Lord of the Rings

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lathriel

I am very glad that this version never came to be. As well I don't like Excalibur so...Anyway, it would have ruined part of Tolkien for me.

Indeed what were they on while coming up with this.

You see, it wouldn't have ruined part of Tolkien for me because its so diferent from the books. I have much more of a problem with the PJ movies because they're so close to the books generally that the changes grate much more.

[Lalwendë]

To be honest, if a film like that had been made before Jackson's adaptations then I'd have gone up the wall, no matter who made it! Whatever we think about Jackson's version, I think he did at least make an effort to stay as true to the books as he could - putting aside TT of course, which really went off on one as t'were. I think Jackson had to do this in order to win the support of the Tolkien fans like us, as it was our dislike that would make or break the initial reception of these films anwyay.

But, if Boorman made that film now, I'd probably think it was excellent viewing, seeing as I thought Excalibur was brilliant - mad, funny and scary all at once. After all, the stories these films are based on are mad enough, so why shouldn't the film makers be allowed a little fun when making them? Once the 'serious' version is out of the way, of course.

One thing bothered me though. Rock opera? Ugh!

[Essex]

Originally Posted by davem

You see, it wouldn't have ruined part of Tolkien for me because its so diferent from the books. I have much more of a problem with the PJ movies because they're so close to the books generally that the changes grate much more.

If you take this premise that you would rather the movie to be miles away rather than close but with changes that 'grate', then what you are saying (and mister underhill is too) is that the Cartoon version Return of the King is a better version of ROTK than PJ's?

Can I have some of what you're on?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Essex

If you take this premise that you would rather the movie to be miles away rather than close but with changes that 'grate', then what you are saying (and mister underhill is too) is that the Cartoon version Return of the King is a better version of ROTK than PJ's?

Can I have some of what you're on?

Actually, Bakshi's version is closer to the book than PJ's. I can't really comment on the Rankin-Bass RotK as I haven't seen it. I'm not sure it would be a 'better' version of the story, but I suspect it wouldn't bother me as much if it is really different.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

We hates Davem's summary above, we
hates it forever. He das'nt even mention poor
Smeagol in it. The precious wonders what's
nice Smeagol's part in it, gollum, gollum?

[Macalaure]

posted by davem
You see, it wouldn't have ruined part of Tolkien for me because its so diferent from the books. I have much more of a problem with the PJ movies because they're so close to the books generally that the changes grate much more.

I understand your point, but keep in mind that many people would have watched the movie who had not been in touch Tolkien until then. To them, the Lord of the Rings would be the way the movie was, and so they end with completely wrong idea of it. Maybe people who would have liked the book would not read it after the movie, and people who liked the movie would be disappointed by the book. Maybe all adaptations suffer this, but the farther the film is from the book, the greater this effect is. I think, in a way, it distorts the perception of the original.

[Essex]

Originally Posted by davem

Actually, Bakshi's version is closer to the book than PJ's.

Totally agree and have mentioned this many times, but I'm not talking about that one. And by your logic, you must dislike theis version even more becasue it's closer to the books, but still takes liberties?

I can't really comment on the Rankin-Bass RotK as I haven't seen it. I'm not sure it would be a 'better' version of the story, but I suspect it wouldn't bother me as much if it is really different.

you have to see it. You'll love it.... 'Where there's a Whip, there's a Way' - so far removed from the book that it will be your favourite movie of all time

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Now, now, don't go dissing davem.

To be perfectly honest, when I started reading the original post, I checked the date on it to make sure it wasn't 4/1. The proposed scripts are absolutely outrageous. Makes me get on my knees and thank God for Peter Jackson. Think what could have happened if any director other than him had taken this project.

I totally disagree that a film version of a book should be totally different. I don't want to see a completely different story that's still called LOTR and still has some of the same character names; ideally, I want to see the book on film. Obviously, PJ hasn't come close to giving us that, and it would be impossible beyond impossible. If I can't get that, I want movies that are faithful to Tolkien's story and his values, but that are great artistic works in themselves. And PJ has delivered beyond my wildest hopes or dreams in that area.

Honestly, davem, it is interesting to hear your perspective. This forum has seen tons of rabid Tolkienites angry about this or that that PJ did, but I haven't heard anybody saying he didn't change nearly enough.

[ArathorofBarahir]

Thank God for Peter Jackson, that's all I have to say, and the fact that I think that John Boorman was on drugs.

[MatthewM]

Oh my Lord. To read that made me sick. PJ is the man. Boorman should be slain (if he is not dead already). Sorry to be so blunt, but wow! Tolkien would of rolled over in his grave and perhaps haunted Boorman the rest of his life!