John Boorman's Lord of the Rings

[TheLostPilgrim]

I kind of wish this was made. The late '60s-early '70s had a very fantasy inspired--almost alien to me--feel about them in and of themselves; As if Middle Earth was closer than ever. This film would've deviated from the books heavily, yes, but any film version would be a mere adaptation, and this would've at least been original AND would not have pretended to be close to the source material. Boorman wove magic with Excalibur and created one of the best fantasy movies of all time--I have no doubt he could've done it with his version of the LOTR. I would've also loved to see the Wizard battle of words rather than the cheesy battle in PJ's film--The Battle of Words actually sounds rather intense. And perhaps the talents of Ray Harryhausen could've been brought in, to create some of the creatures in that wonderful stop motion style (I am a huge fan of it, personally) Why not?

It might have drifted far from the source material, but it could've been an amazing fantasy film in and of itself, and truly an awesome product of the freer 1970s. The era of D&D and the like. A time closer in spirit to the Lord of the Rings itself--when people wanted to go to "back to the land" and hated industrialization and longed for the forests, trees, and a more agrarian lifestyle--Much like Tolkien himself.

As it is, there is and will always be only one TRUE version of the Lord of the Rings and it is a book penned by J.R.R. Tolkien.

[narfforc]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

As it is, there is and will always be only one TRUE version of the Lord of the Rings and it is a book penned by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Therein lies the problem TLP, if you deviate too far from the original it becomes something else, for example Merlin the T.V series. They could quite easily have called that programme The Boy Magician, for it is so far removed from anything I have read on the subject. Boormans's EXCALIBUR plays heavily on Le Morte D'Arthur which in itself is almost complete fantasy and little to do with the mytho/historical Arthur. I find the latest (2004) Arthur film to be better, even though it misses out characters and diverts from legends. I have over 700 Tolkien books in my library and quite a few on Arthur..... but when it comes to films I'm not a purist, I'm a realist, it is almost impossible to expect a film to remain totally loyal to a book.... but please, let's not deviate TOO far.

[Sir Kohran]

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

this would've at least been original AND would not have pretended to be close to the source material.

But it still would've been released as 'The Lord of the Rings', which effectively IS claiming to be close to the source material.

Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim

it could've been an amazing fantasy film in and of itself

With Gimli being beaten in a hole and Frodo engaging in sexual intercourse with Galadriel? Really?

Originally Posted by narfforc

I find the latest (2004) Arthur film to be better

I don't know about anyone else but I thought that movie was awful. It discards the fantasy of Arthur's story so it can claim to be realistic, yet is then riddled with so many historical inaccuracies and ridiculous sequences that it actually ends up being neither.

And let's not even discuss Keira Knightley's role.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I don't know about anyone else but I thought that movie was awful. It discards the fantasy of Arthur's story so it can claim to be realistic, yet is then riddled with so many historical inaccuracies and ridiculous sequences that it actually ends up being neither.

I haven't seen this film, but I agree it seems a bit perverse to discard the fantasical elements in something that consists of little else. No offence, narfforc, but honestly, I think you could fit all known facts about the historical King Arthur on the back of a postage stamp.

[narfforc]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I haven't seen this film, but I agree it seems a bit perverse to discard the fantasical elements in something that consists of little else. No offence, narfforc, but honestly, I think you could fit all known facts about the historical King Arthur on the back of a postage stamp.

What is known is that even less of the fantasy Arthur ever existed, but some actual leader of The Dark Ages did. He was not a knight in shining armour, nor did he live in a Disney Type Fairy castle. I for one enjoyed the 2004 film for one reason, it attempted to show some of the theories behind the historical Arthur and not the Hollywood History of England version nor the fantasy one. Anyone wishing read anything on the search for the real Arthur should read the following books:-

Pendragon:The Origins of Arthur by Steve Blake & Scott Lloyd
The Keys To Avalon by Steve Blake & Scott Lloyd
Arthur And The Lost Kingdoms by Alistair Moffat
The Reign Of Arthur by Christopher Gidlow
The Holy Kingdom by Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett
Arthur The Dragon King by Howard Reid
King Arthur's Place In History by W.A. Cummins
King Arthur A Military History by Michael Holmes
Arthur King Of The Britons by Daniel Mersey
Arthur's Britain by Leslie Alcock
A Quest For Arthur's Britain by Geoffrey Ashe
King Arthur by Norma Lorre Goodrich

There are of course many more, but these are the ones I enjoyed most. If of course you want the Fantasy version look no further than Le Morte D'Arthur and Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail.

God knows what Boorman would have done to the Lord of the Rings, probably the same as his treatment of Arthur, ignore anything to do with the real book.

[Nerwen]

To the best of my knowledge, narfforc, historians by no means all agree that Arthur was a real person– that in fact is why he's regarded as a legendary, rather than historical, figure. Everything you cite there would be dealing with conjecture, not fact, anyway. So I just don't think it's fair to attack Boorman for choosing to go with the fantastical approach in that case.

This has nothing to do with my opinion of his proposed travesty of "Lord of the Rings", you understand. The two cases are just not the same.

[narfforc]

There is one similarity, both Le Morte and LofR's are works of fiction. I believe Boorman's treatment of the material at his disposal was bad, whether the fantasy Arthur or not, given that, I would fear his approach to any film concerning Hobbits.