Just when I thought there might have been hope for the second D&D movie...

[Desdichado]

Then why wasn't a certain animated LotR as popular as the current movies?

I think it has a little to do with both the adaptation and the source material.

Yeah, Bakshi made a real hash of the source material -- rather, let me restate what I originally said. I think Peter Jackson is a pedestrian, workable film-maker who wisely used (and adhered to fairly closely) wonderful source material to make a (trio of) movie(s) that really rises above his normal skill level.

Ralph Bakshi, on the other hand, is a horrible film maker who took some good source material, ignored or modified so much of it that it is nearly unrecognizable, and did such a piss-poor execution of what was left that his movie is almost unwatchable.

But yeah, aside from that, I pretty much agree. Every time I watch the movies again, I see more stuff I don't like. I find this is much more apparent when I watch RotK and tTT, FotR, to me, feels pretty damn perfect on nearly every viewing. The Balrog scene (and Moria in general) are just incredible pieces of filmmaking.

I'd agree with that as well. The later two movies almost seem to be trying too hard to do certain things, while the first movie is much more consistently excellent.

 

[Piratecat]

I would have loved to see Paris Hilton as Arwen.

And Thora Birch as Eowyn. And Snails (which Wayans brother is he?) as Gandalf, and the guy with the blue lips as Frodo, and Jeremy Irons as Legolas. . .

 

[Celtavian]

re

Probably true. My wife, for instance, really like the lines Eowyn did have in that scene ("I am no man!" prompting spontaneous praise, which is very unusual for her).

But that doesn't invalidate a lot of barsoomcore's complaints; I think they're quite valid. That scene should have been one of the big emotional payoffs of the movie, and it played out quite flat, IMO. And even though a strict Tolkien reproduction would undoubtably have been a poor move, replacing it with generally inferior dialogue wasn't exactly a great move either.

It's my opinion that Peter Jackson and Co. aren't really particularly gifted film-makers in a lot of ways, and the fact that the Lord of the Rings movies are as good as they are is more a testament to the strength of the source material than to their ability to adapt it. Especially as the movies went on, I noticed that the better scenes were the ones that were most like Tolkien. A particular gripe of mine is the non-Tolkien dialogue that simply rang artificial and unsatisfying. I was also particularly tired of the "slow motion emotional set pieces" as I call them; the scenes where you have a slow motion close-ups of characters seeing other characters give unnatural, posed and strained (yet very meaningful) looks to each other. Then character A, back to full screen slow motion close up, gasps and lets a single tear fall down his or her cheek. Then someone says something awkward.

Granted, I sound a bit schizophrenic in that post; I do agree that Tolkien needs some serious trimming and reshaping to be viable as a movie script. However, I also think that the Jackson adaptation, in a lot of ways, was a hack job where a more skillfull hand would have done better. Saying that Tolkien needs to be pruned to be a good movie and then turning around and saying that the best scenes in the movies were the largely untouched scenes is not contradictory, although it seems like it up front. It just means that Boyens and Walsh weren't really the best ones to write the screenplay. I think there are others who could have done a better job with the dialogue and the faux meaningful scenes.

And some of the introduced "conflicts" really felt forced and unusual. I can see what they were trying to do with the Sam and Frodo falling out, and Gollum's lembas crumbs, but that whole scene felt really hoaky to me. Of course, the slow motion falling crumbs, and slow motion stumbling Sam, and slow motion crying Sam and slow motion sneering Gollum, etc. didn't help.

Maybe I just really dislike some of the dialogue and the overuse of slow motion posed scenes for "emotional impact." Trust in the emotional impact of the source material, without constantly overdoing one attempted dressed up emotional sucker punch after another, please.

I find this really disturbing Joshua. I left this thread so I wouldn't end up in another useless debate with you over our past disagreement over Lord of the Rings. Now you start mentioning many of the same complaints I previously noted with the adaptation of the source material. I fail to understand why you attacked my view of the movies while now you seemingly agree with some of the glaring flaws I mentioned. I find it very strange.

I think any true Tolkien fan will have a love-hate relationship with the Lord of the Rings movies. There are parts of the movies that are absolutely stellar. The movie visuals are beautiful and bring Middle Earth to life. The characterizations are off for many characters. Several of the scenes don't mesh well or are overly hokey. Some scenes lost their emotional impact when brought to the screen, most especially the scene where Eowyn kills the Witchking.

The times I have venomously attacked Peter Jackson have been because of his interviews. Everytime I hear Peter Jackson state that he has made an improvement to the story, I become extremely irritated. Peter Jackson may be a great visual director but to make the assertion that you have improved upon a story written by Professor Tolkien, a man far more educated on mythology, language, and storytelling than Peter Jackson will ever be, is the height of arrogance. Most of my attacks on Peter Jackson are fueled by his arrogant and ludicrous statements.

If Peter Jackson had simply stated that he made the change because he couldn't think of a better way to pull the scene off or continue the story flow for the movie, then I would have understood even if I did not like the change. The only improvement I can remember Peter Jackson making was showing how distressed Merry and Pippin were at being separated after Pippin stole the Palantir IMO.

I still have no idea why you have such a problem with my take on the Lord of the Rings movies. I think they are good movies, just not a particularly faithful and well-done adaptation of the books.

 

[reapersaurus]

This FotR talk DEFINATELY belongs in a different thread.

You can't just tiptoe your toe in the waters of "LotR movies had flaws."

As for the D&D movie, it was heartening to hear the comment about "excitement about the franchise" etc.

It was disheartening to hear them even consider such a talentless nobody as Paris Hilton for the movie.

 

[barsoomcore]

As for the D&D movie, it was heartening to hear the comment about "excitement about the franchise" etc.

Yeah, it would be a good thing, I think, if the D&D name got considered half-way valuable. Like I've said before, I would welcome a slew of less-than-blockbuster fantasy movies. And I think there's a market for "Scorpion King"-like movies (not movies that resemble that one in plot or anything, but at that budget and exposure level) with swords, sorcery and cool stuff in them.

I'd go see 'em, anyway.

It was disheartening to hear them even consider such a talentless nobody as Paris Hilton for the movie.

Not exactly surprising, but sure, disheartening. I certainly expect the next D&D movie (assuming it ever gets made) to be chock-a-block full of "talentless nobodies".

 

[reapersaurus]

But -
If they are hiring nobodies, why the hell would they cast them if they were "talentless"?

I mean, you know what I'm getting at?

I know tons of people hated the first one because *gasp* it didn't have beholders or dragons that were exactly like D&D , but we shouldn't expect the next movie to be absolute $hiite just because it has the D&D label.

They have NO business casting someone if they aren't a "name" actor if they don't fit the movie. That's what casting directors are for.
I feel fairly sure that if I saw 100 professional actors for any particular role in the D&D movie, I could find someone with some talent, that would dedicate the,selves to bringing some character to the screen, and would work hard.

If they can't find good actors, it's their fault. I refuse to believe with SO many people desperate for work, that they can't find adequate fantasy-actors if they don't have to cast for a Big Name Actor.

And while I'm talking about D&D movie acting, I'll state that I think that Ridley (Joe Whaley, or something?) did a good job of bringing a likeable rogue to screen last time.
It's not rocket science.

 

[barsoomcore]

Man, this weird. We keep agreeing. Something's not right.

But the first thing I'll say is that it's awfully early to be getting wound up about casting rumours on a picture that has yet to acquire a script, or even a writer. This movie is a long way from getting made and a lot is going to change between now and then.

Announcing that Paris Hilton is "in talks" to be in it isn't the stupidest move ever (not in the history of D&D films, anyway) -- it gets a bit of media attention without committing to anything whatsoever.

I'm not saying that casting Paris Hilton is a good idea -- though for all I know she's the next Cate Blanchett -- just that it's awfully early to be worrying about who's going to be IN it. I'd say, let's first find out if it's going to be made at all.