Alternative adaptations of LoTR and TH

It feels so refreshing to be this crabbit!

Its good for the soul Eldo, if I believed in a soul- although the more buckie you drink the more your inclined to think you have one!

As to PJ and his ludicrous mace- yeah it just looks bloody silly. Theres a lot of common sense goes out the window in RotK especially. Most of the editing I had to do in it was just taking out the stupid crap; Pippin climbing the beacon to light because Denethors too insane, Gandalf hitting people and killing Denethor- its not suicide if a wizard and a magical horse kick you onto the bonfire, Legolas taking taking down a Mumakil on his own like a mad jumping thing, lots of silliness. And I even managed to drop a v strong visual hint that Denethor is using a palantir (quite chuffed I found a way to get that in).
The more work I do editing them the more rubbish seems to be in them, sadly some silliness I could not get rid of entirely- like the disappearing reappearing staff Ringdrotten mentioned, or women and children being in the first level of Minas Tirith- even after the gates have fallen (although I could have reduced that more on a watch back- maybe next time I decide to tweek them!). Too much silliness by far in that film.

I agree, and that's why I think ROTK (and to a lesser extent TTT) was the beginning of PJ losing his grip and falling into the pits of self-indulgence and absurdity. I'm sure you would say that the fall came earlier, but I think that in FOTR he showed quite a bit of restraint (though even then you can see the first stirrings of his darker tendencies, such as the collapsing staircase scene), but with the increasing success of each film he became more arrogant and less inclined to tone things down.

His lack of restraint is largely why, despite ROTK having some of my favourite parts of the entire trilogy, the film feels rather dissatisfying at times. In small doses I can appreciate PJ's goofy stuff, but it gets tiring. I've ranted at length before about the gigantic mess of celluloid that was King Kong and from what I've read about The Lovely Bones he isn't getting better. In fact, PJ's credibility among critics and movie-goers alike seems to be slipping, as King Kong had a significant financial and award drop-off from LOTR and TLB couldn't break even at the box office.

I suspect that going back to his first mega-hit will help PJ's fortunes with critics and fans, but it will be interesting to see if he's learned any lessons from his (relative) failures.

I still await with a fading hope some news from TH set of things to inspire my flagging enthusiasm and that indeed PJ has learnt some lessons- but so far the news has tended towards supporting the 'King Kong' route of film making- Illuvator help us!!

I haven't been following the reports that closely, though filming hasn't even begun and as far as I can tell the script details are largely being kept under wraps for now. I'm not particularly optimistic, though, and my only hope at this point is that the financial failure of The Lovely Bones will convince PJ to reconsider what made his earlier films good, but that's a faint hope.

Earlier films? As early as Braindead? I lost track of PJ's career when he stopped making funny gore moves until he popped up doing LotR. Did he do something good inbetween?

I was referring to LOTR and especially FOTR. I consider them to be good films, even with all their flaws. I've not seen any of PJ's work from the '80s and '90s, though I'd like to.

Actually even his gore flicks with hindsight reflect his obsession with the over the top and the ridiculous, spectacle over substance- but they were throw away fluff, fun, intrestingly shot for budget films and silly. LotR is not.

As to FotR- I dont consider a bad film as I do his TT or RotK- and all three have good things in them, I'm not denying that. But the overall thrust, the presentation of it and the outbreaks of the ridiculous ruin them and overwhelm the good stuff. With the silliness and froth removed I can enjoy them as films without a problem, showing he got a lot right where stuck to the book, but even then they are only enjoyable but they don't quite feel like LotR to me, they lack the relevant substance. Everything in them is simplified too much. Denethor is the best example of that I can thin of, he is simplified to the point where he doesn't really make any sense. He seems to rule entirely on his own with a few servants hanging about. There are armies but no Captains beside Faramir, no one complains, no one asks why he hasn't lit the beacons yet and no one seems bothered. Gandalf calls him mad in the street in front of everyone and no one notices and even hits him, out in the open in front of all his guards and no one does anything. He's been reduced a one dimensional story prop.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Actually even his gore flicks with hindsight reflect his obsession with the over the top and the ridiculous,

Braindead and Bad Taste are nothing but over the top and ridiculous Still, they are bloody hilarious

Its been years since I saw them but my memories are fond-shame I can't say the same about LotR.

Whilst doing a mega re-edit I released something that has always bothered me about the prologue (in every version of LotR I've seen or heard they feel the need for the prologue so I'm not just talking PJ here) and its not actually relevant.
If anything it ruins the opening, in particular in the film.
Its too long for a start. There is far to much to take in and remember if your new to LotR's. And worst of all it leaves the viewer with more knowledge about where the Ring came from and its evil power than any of the principles characters do at the start.
So I tried taking it out. I moved the relevant couple of bits- Isildur cutting the Ring, Isildur losing the Ring, Bilbo finding the Ring, to the relevant places in the Shadows of the Past section of the film and its much better.
Now the viewer follows Gandalf's suspicions raised by Bilbo and culminating in his finding Isildur's scroll and putting it to the test. The moment when Gandalf realises this is The Ring is the same moment the viewer finds out. It makes the opening much more entertaining watching at its now about something more than Bilbo leaving and passing on the Ring, its about finding out what the Ring is.

What's other peoples views on the prologue. Does LotR have to have one?

I always skip the prologue when I watch FotR, as I find it a much more enjoyable film without the prologue. Same goes for RotK (moving the scenes from the RotK prologue to TT in your edit, however, was a brilliant move). Like you say, I think they ruin the opening too. I'd be very interested in seeing your new edit, I love the idea of putting the scenes you mention in the Shadow of the past sequence

From a personal point of view, I have always enjoyed the prologue of FOTR as setting the scene for the action and getting me ready for the film, but I suspect a lot of that enjoyment comes from my knowledge of the books and what referencing I was looking for the first time I watched the flms.

I don't believe however they are necessary to the film. In later viewings it is something to be watched through before the film proper starts. Reinstating shadows of the past with footage sounds like a good idea and I can see how it would work.

On the other side of that, being used to the entry scenes to PJs fims, it took me slightly by suprise when your edit of TT went straight into the action (still part way through, thoughts will follow when I have finished!) this works as the second part of a three part film, although I am not sure it would work as a cinematic release a year after the first.

"I suspect a lot of that enjoyment comes from my knowledge of the books and what referencing I was looking for the first time I watched the films"- Kafria


I think this is actually a problem with PJ's intro. Its trying to please, he thinks, purists like me by throwing everything in there. And most of it is not necessary for the story and in fact gets in the way.
Bilbo's 'concerning hobbitts' intro is in fact much better as an opening to the film, with no fights, no sense of darkness and gloom, just hobbits and the green Shire as in the book.
It says a lot about PJ that for the cinematic release he choose to keep the bombastic intro and drop the gentle one.

On the point about the intro to TT it always irked me PJ was quite boastful about TT not having an intro and just getting on with the story, when it clearly does have one in the Gandalf/Balrog thing (ruining the fact he is still alive way too soon in the process). I don;t know if you could get away with just jumping in as I do in a cinema release a year apart, it would be brave film making and PJ is not that for sure. But I have no problem with there being a recap just for the cinema release that can be removed for home releases afterwards.

Further to my earlier horrifying thought they might kill of Radagast to explain the complete absence of one of the wizards in LotR, I've had an even worse thought- what if Radagsat is in Lotr's!! What if he's the moth? The one that appears on Orthanc and gets the eagle to rescue Gandalf and who turns up before the Black Gate to herald the arrival of the eagles? I really wouldn't put it past PJ to show Radagast as a shapeshifter who becomes a moth- probably tie him to the eagles in TH too.

Oh dear now my crabbitness is complete.

Well you only have yourself to blame for that one! That is a possibility that would never have crossed my mind

Now how do I get in touch with PJ

Don't you dare!! Not even if you're drunk on buckie!

I need to keep my big mouth shut from now on.

Your theory explains a lot about that damn moth, actually.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Further to my earlier horrifying thought they might kill of Radagast to explain the complete absence of one of the wizards in LotR, I've had an even worse thought- what if Radagsat is in Lotr's!! What if he's the moth? The one that appears on Orthanc and gets the eagle to rescue Gandalf and who turns up before the Black Gate to herald the arrival of the eagles? I really wouldn't put it past PJ to show Radagast as a shapeshifter who becomes a moth- probably tie him to the eagles in TH too.

Oh dear now my crabbitness is complete.

Brilliant idea, to be honest (and no, I'm not being sarcastic! )

What?! How can I post something so ludicrous I assume no one could take it seriously and people like the idea?!!!
Are you all PJ in disguise?

Oh dear only half 1 in the afternoon and all ready I feel the need to reach for the buckie and cure my crabbitness!

I don't like the moth in general, but making him a shape-shifting wizard is better than him simply being an intelligent bug that can fly across hundreds of miles bearing messages for the forces of good.

Bugger! You might have a point there Eldo.

(((When in doubt Tyrant old boy claim it was a brilliant idea of yours in the first place and blame PJ for theft it it turns up! Good thinking bit of my brain the buckie hasn't reached yet. )))

Yes its a brilliant idea of mine and if it shows up in PJ's film you can be certain the buggers stolen it from me.

Now I've located the BBCradio plays on Youtube there is no excuse for those who haven't heard it not to do so now. Immediately in fact. On you go, you know who you are. Much more of interest here to talk about than PJ's version. And interesting comapritive discussions await. So come on folks- give it a go.

One of my favourite episodes of the radio version- The Voice of Saruman.

Never seen this before
http://periannath.com/feature/glow-in-the-dark-hobbits-homophobic-frodos-rankin-bass-1980-the-return-of-the-king-reviewed/

« Ten reasons why Gandalf is the greatest wizard EVAR