CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Remembering the Unlikeliest Blockbuster
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Remembering the Unlikeliest Blockbuster - Page 3

post #101 of 133
8/11/09 at 2:42pm
Great write-up, Dev. I remember when the news about the LOTR flicks hit, maybe 10 years ago - everything sounded spot-on, especially the casting.
Reply
post #102 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:37pm
I think an even more unlikely blockbuster was the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. A movie based on a theme park ride? Starring a guy who's biggest opening weekend to that point was $30 million for Sleepy Hollow, which the name Tim Burton had more to do with than his did? Oh yeah, that's breaking $300 million....
Reply
post #103 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:42pm
Thread Starter 
Johnny Depp was a star before PIRATES, though.
Reply
post #104 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:43pm
Also, it's a lot easier to get a fantasy action movie about zombie pirates off the ground than a massive three picture undertaking of what many considered an unfilmable work of fiction. I think THAT is the point here, not whether other movies also were surprisingly successful.
Reply
post #105 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
Yeah, but it also gives a great shot of Viggo when he thinks they wont' come fight with him. I think that's a better addition than the ambiguity of Army's position.
Its funny because while that scene is great, cutting right before the ghost confronts him would of been still fairly good too. I guess Peter Jackson really wanted to get his cameo in. Actually I think the chapter stop is somewhere around the ships arriving at Gondor, so I usually just skip forward to the next chapter right after Aragorn looks defeated.

This is like yelling at an Asian kid who got a 98 on an exam when he could of got a 99. No point.



Still its done anyways.
Reply
post #106 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS View Post
This is like yelling at an Asian kid who got a 98 on an exam when he could of got a 99. No point.
That Asian kid should've gotten those other two points.
Reply
post #107 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Johnny Depp was a star before PIRATES, though.
He was a star, but he wasn't all that bankable, and not the guy you would picture fronting a $300 million blockbuster.

I see what Brad is saying, though I still think the stigma of being based on a theme park ride was a huge thing for the film to overcome. LOTR did have a much bigger risk attached.
Reply
post #108 of 133
8/11/09 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devildoubt View Post
That Asian kid should've gotten those other two points.
You mean "should of", obviously.
Reply
post #109 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:06pm
These films will always be worth another look. Thanks for another great article Devin. In recent weeks I've been considering re-visiting the LOTR yet again. It has been a while since the last time but I think this article might be the swift kick in the pants needed to get me moving in that regard.
Reply
post #110 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette View Post
Also, it's a lot easier to get a fantasy action movie about zombie pirates off the ground than a massive three picture undertaking of what many considered an unfilmable work of fiction. I think THAT is the point here, not whether other movies also were surprisingly successful.
I don't know, when was the last successful proper pirate movie before Pirates? The 50's? I'm guessing the name Cutthroat Island was in the back of many exec's nervous minds before it broke out.
Reply
post #111 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:15pm
I think the 'Concerning Hobbits' intro is fantastic. I will take that over the silly 'Escape over the Bridge of Kazad-Dum!' any day. What the fuck, Balrog? Is he stopping off for a coffee?

As for the Two Towers EE - I didn't really enjoy the theatrical version in the theaters. Maybe it was my expectations (it's my favorite book of the three), and maybe also the poor composition job they did with the Ents, but I felt underwhelmed. Watching the EE a couple years later though, I absolutely loved it. The Boromir addition is essential. Although I think Fellowship is easily the best of the three movies (in any configuration), the Two Towers was greatly benefited in the extended versions. A couple people have mentioned that it's kind of a hard slog to get through - I think that's part of the point, personally.
Reply
post #112 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:19pm
Fantasy Films had a very questionable record at the box office before LOTR came out.
For every Conan there were two or three Dragonslayers ( I like the film but it was a huge bomb at the box office) or Legends . And even most of the sucessful Fantasy films were not huge hits ("Willow" was a modest sucess). So ,yeah, for New Line to spend 300 Million on a trilogy of Fantasy films was a huge gamble. Not to mention that the idea of releasing a film of any kind in three parts would still be considered a big,big, gamble.

One thing about the film: The "purist" wars over LOTR duirng it's making.dwarf (no pun intended) anything I have seen since. The fuss over "The Watchmen" was minor league compared to the LOTR brouhaha.
Reply
post #113 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:26pm
Why were these books exactly deemed unfilmable? I mean, a lot of stuff can just be cut out wholesale: pages of songs, descriptions of landscapes, derails about genealogy...
Reply
post #114 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca S. View Post
Why were these books exactly deemed unfilmable? I mean, a lot of stuff can just be cut out wholesale: pages of songs, descriptions of landscapes, derails about genealogy...
Because of the "insider" knowledge they required - both in the background myths and stories, and the sheer amount of exposition.

Also, prior to the digital effects revolution, effects would have been either impossible or prohibitively expensive.
Reply
post #115 of 133
8/11/09 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz Chrome View Post
I don't know, when was the last successful proper pirate movie before Pirates? The 50's? I'm guessing the name Cutthroat Island was in the back of many exec's nervous minds before it broke out.
I'm not saying it was a guaranteed hit, but it's a lot less risky a proposition that simultaneously filming THREE(!) near-epic films, each nearing or cresting the three hour mark AFTER editing, based on a series of books that many considered to be too risky to make a proper film out of them.

The argument isn't about whether another movie was a runaway unexpected hit, it's that Lord of the Rings was an incredible undertaking that very easily could have been a massive, massive failure for New Line.

But a single movie like Pirates, with a decent hook and a popular star (Depp was a star before Pirates, like Devin said) is a much, much safer bet. It was definitely much more of a hit than I think people were expecting, but there wasn't nearly as much riding on it, or as much potential for failure.
Reply
post #116 of 133
8/11/09 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf View Post
Johnny Depp was a star before PIRATES, though.
The way I remember it was that not only was Depp an established star but LOTR had given general audiences a substatial new apetite for big-screen swashbuckling when Pirates hit, people were in the mood for more old fashioned sword business and adventure in between Frodotales, and old Legolas himself was pretty big stuff with a big group of movie-going teenage girls at the time too. To us there might be a significant difference in genre but to the peeps that make the BO sing there isn't. Pirates was impressively and surprisingly successful given its lineage but it landed in a climate already made nicely hospitable by LOTR.
Reply
post #117 of 133
8/11/09 at 6:25pm
Great article. Damn, I love it when you talk Tolkien to me.
Reply
post #118 of 133
8/11/09 at 7:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
One thing about the film: The "purist" wars over LOTR duirng it's making.dwarf (no pun intended) anything I have seen since. The fuss over "The Watchmen" was minor league compared to the LOTR brouhaha.
Seriously. I was following those way back in 2000/01 as well. For me the hilarious peak/nadir was reached when an early photo of one of the black riders emerged showing a black eye of sauron symbol hanging around the horse's neck, which led to a gigantic multipage thread on theonering.com (where the true hardcore fanboys hung out) filled with bickering over whether the addition of such a non-tolkien-approved design detail was an unforgivable subversion of the sacred text or not. I just checked it out for old times sake and many of the same names are there bickering to this very day.
Reply
post #119 of 133
8/12/09 at 1:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca S. View Post
Why were these books exactly deemed unfilmable? I mean, a lot of stuff can just be cut out wholesale: pages of songs, descriptions of landscapes, derails about genealogy...
That's just it. You cut that, it's not Tolkien.

IIRC Boorman was on the hook to direct it for a while.
Reply
post #120 of 133
8/12/09 at 3:10am
Yeah, Boorman was going to make the whole thing as a 3.5-4 hour movie with an intermission in the middle, and made large swaths of changes to the narrative in order to achieve this end, a lot of the thematic ideas he developed on his own later got folded into Excalibur.

I would do horrible and unspeakable things to get my hands on a copy of Boorman's script, as it sounds like the most bizarre adaptation imaginable. If any body has access that script, please give me a PM.
Reply
post #121 of 133
8/12/09 at 4:00am
How big of a gamble and without the benefit of hindsight an unwise decision LOTR was for New Line shows by the fact that no one has ever attempted something similar since. Can you imagine Lionsgate for example budgeting almost half a billion dollars so that Berg can simultaneously shoot the first three Dune books?
Reply
post #122 of 133
8/12/09 at 4:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelios View Post
How big of a gamble and without the benefit of hindsight an unwise decision LOTR was for New Line shows by the fact that no one has ever attempted something similar since. Can you imagine Lionsgate for example budgeting almost half a billion dollars so that Berg can simultaneously shoot the first three Dune books?
Exactly stel. In fact that example is about the only comparabley apt one that could be offered I reckon.
Reply
post #123 of 133
8/12/09 at 7:52am
From Nicks review of the EE of Return Of The King...

Quote:
I don't think some people understand just how special the last few years were in terms of both the cultural and cinematic impact of The Lord of the Rings, but also the fact that something made its way through the system alive and with its dignity intact. The box office and awards and across the board acceptance was something we just don't see. Even Titanic in all its glory never matched this kind of a resounding knockout punch.
Dear god Nick I do. I got it and I get it - thats what Devs Advocate is really trying to remind us of - especially in a blockbuster summer like this one. With these films we got our Ben Hur, our Lawrence of Arabia, our Ran. The fact that it happened to be based on my favorite book ever just made it the most personally unique experience I could get in my film going lifetime.

I don't think we'll see anything comparable to this saga on film for a very very long time, if at all in our lifetimes. I almost feel sorry for people who see these as 'just another series of movies' or don't dig them at all even. I'd love every cinephile to feel the marriage of the heart and head I get every time I have this experience.

Quite literally the only regret I've ever had about these films is that I couldn't have watched them with my dad, the original cinephile, so he could have finally worked out why his son was raving on and on about these bloody books of wizards and battles and rings for so many years.
Reply
post #124 of 133
8/12/09 at 10:51am
I still prefer the Theatrical Editions of the trilogy. To me, they seem tighter and more cinematic, while the EE's have the feel of a mini-series (and a great mini-series at that). I do admire the dense and leisured pacing of the EE's, but they aren't my first choice when deciding to watch.

Call me crazy, but, there it is.

I may be the only one who is thrilled to buy up the theatrical's on Blu-ray at the end of the year instead of the EE's.
Reply
post #125 of 133
8/12/09 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz Chrome View Post
Seriously. I was following those way back in 2000/01 as well. For me the hilarious peak/nadir was reached when an early photo of one of the black riders emerged showing a black eye of sauron symbol hanging around the horse's neck, which led to a gigantic multipage thread on theonering.com (where the true hardcore fanboys hung out) filled with bickering over whether the addition of such a non-tolkien-approved design detail was an unforgivable subversion of the sacred text or not. I just checked it out for old times sake and many of the same names are there bickering to this very day.

I remember the pure hatred against certain casting choices for no other reason then they did not fit in with what some particular fan 's image of the character was. Liv Tyler in particular caught a lot of abuse.
And the hatred Jackson got when he went with Howard Shore for the music rather then the fanboy choices of John Williams of James Horner.
I have been a huge Tolkien fan since I read the books in Junior High in 1979,and have reread LOTR and the SIm on an annual basis since then ,but A lot of the Tolkien fans are anal retentives who are a textbook example of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
I don't agree with every change and choice that Jackson made,(Gimli reduced to a one line comic relief machine, for example, and that he never made really clear to people who had never reads the books why Frodo had to leave Middle Earth) but over all Jackson really kept the spirit of the book. And that is more important then mind numbing "accuracy" to every detail of the book.

And I expect the same crap to start again when the Hobbit goes into full gear.
Reply
post #126 of 133
8/12/09 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz Chrome View Post
Seriously. I was following those way back in 2000/01 as well. For me the hilarious peak/nadir was reached when an early photo of one of the black riders emerged showing a black eye of sauron symbol hanging around the horse's neck, which led to a gigantic multipage thread on theonering.com (where the true hardcore fanboys hung out) filled with bickering over whether the addition of such a non-tolkien-approved design detail was an unforgivable subversion of the sacred text or not. I just checked it out for old times sake and many of the same names are there bickering to this very day.

Idp
Reply
post #127 of 133
8/13/09 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLowbudget@ View Post
Yeah, Boorman was going to make the whole thing as a 3.5-4 hour movie with an intermission in the middle, and made large swaths of changes to the narrative in order to achieve this end, a lot of the thematic ideas he developed on his own later got folded into Excalibur.

I would do horrible and unspeakable things to get my hands on a copy of Boorman's script, as it sounds like the most bizarre adaptation imaginable. If any body has access that script, please give me a PM.
I have it. I also have the Zimmerman scriptment with Tolkien's notes scribbled all over it.

Boorman's script is amazing, though not necessarily in a good way. I would kill to have seen it filmed ala Excalibur.
Reply
post #128 of 133
8/13/09 at 11:56am
I think I'm going to make a go at the Trilogy marathon style this weekend I just have to decide if I want to take on the theatrical cuts or the extended ones.
Reply
post #129 of 133
8/13/09 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca S. View Post
Why were these books exactly deemed unfilmable? I mean, a lot of stuff can just be cut out wholesale: pages of songs, descriptions of landscapes, derails about genealogy...
Besides the aforementioned risk of a "death of a thousand cuts" in paring down those details, the book does not really have any kind of conventional act structure. Its villain is practically abstract, the climax isn't a final confrontation but a test of will, and the denouement is 200 pages long.

Clearly the last thing on Tolkien's mind was a film adaptation. For all the gaps and occasional questionable choices, the screenplay is still pretty much a miracle.
Reply
post #130 of 133
8/13/09 at 8:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidNtheHelmet View Post
I think I'm going to make a go at the Trilogy marathon style this weekend I just have to decide if I want to take on the theatrical cuts or the extended ones.
If you're watching all 3 back to back as one long movie, I'd personally argue watching the EE's suits that pacing more. Sure it takes longer, but they flow better as one long story rather than three seperate films.

Devs writeup has convinced me to do the same. I shall be waking myself up rather early tomorrow (Sat) morning and spending the day in Middle Earth. Been a few years, I'm keen again.
Reply
post #131 of 133
8/13/09 at 9:55pm
I'm with everyone else who says this write up has inspired them to revisit the trilogy again. Last time I did that was during a LOTR drinking game which ended with me projectile vomiting vodka because I took a shot every time the ring was either seen or mentioned. Not my finest hour (or four). This time will be a much more enjoyable experience.
Reply
post #132 of 133
8/13/09 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weasels Rip My Flesh View Post
I'm with everyone else who says this write up has inspired them to revisit the trilogy again. Last time I did that was during a LOTR drinking game which ended with me projectile vomiting vodka because I took a shot every time the ring was either seen or mentioned. Not my finest hour (or four). This time will be a much more enjoyable experience.
Dear god man, you'd have only made it through around the first one and a quarter hours of FOTR before acute alcohol poisoning kicked in surely?
Reply
post #133 of 133
11/18/10 at 1:23pm
One of Devin's best articles. And a drinking game where a mention / sighting of THE ONE RING = drink a shot would leave me passed out on the floor within the hour.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Remembering the Unlikeliest Blockbuster