Lord of the Rings in 4K

crunchman

Fuengi said:

Wow. From the look of this thread they would have been far more popular had they condensed the three books into one film of two hours.

I'm sure that would have gone down well all round  . 

They need to go the other way.  Based on the films (even the extended editions), to tell the story properly would take 15 hours minimum.  Ideally, they would make a TV series of it with high production values.

I don't mind them leaving out Tom Bombadil, and I can understand why they left out the Scouring of the Shire.  It would have been a nightmare to film a battle of 80 men and 300 hobbits.  The kind of false perspective tricks you can do with four people playing hobbits wouldn't work on that scale.  The CGI definitely wouldn't have been up to making that look realistic back then.  Not sure it could even now.

I would love to see a version that was true to the book and had enough time to tell the story without leaving anything out.

Hopefully they could get the casting a bit better as well.  It wasn't bad in the films, but some actors did not fit the characters as you read them in the book.  I won't complain too much though.  It could have been a lot worse.  Just imagine Tom Cruise playing Aragorn.

WezV

crunchman said:

Fuengi said:

Wow. From the look of this thread they would have been far more popular had they condensed the three books into one film of two hours.

I'm sure that would have gone down well all round  . 

They need to go the other way.  Based on the films (even the extended editions), to tell the story properly would take 15 hours minimum.  Ideally, they would make a TV series of it with high production values.

I don't mind them leaving out Tom Bombadil, and I can understand why they left out the Scouring of the Shire.  It would have been a nightmare to film a battle of 80 men and 300 hobbits.  The kind of false perspective tricks you can do with four people playing hobbits wouldn't work on that scale.  The CGI definitely wouldn't have been up to making that look realistic back then.  Not sure it could even now.

I would love to see a version that was true to the book and had enough time to tell the story without leaving anything out.

Hopefully they could get the casting a bit better as well.  It wasn't bad in the films, but some actors did not fit the characters as you read them in the book.  I won't complain too much though.  It could have been a lot worse.  Just imagine Tom Cruise playing Aragorn.

unlikely to happen now Amazon are making the prequal series set in the second age.   Apparently they are not allowed to touch or contradict the established story of the third age at all.   

It only cost then $250m for the rights, which isn't far off what the Jackon Trilogy cost to make

crunchman

WezV said:

crunchman said:

Fuengi said:

Wow. From the look of this thread they would have been far more popular had they condensed the three books into one film of two hours.

I'm sure that would have gone down well all round  . 

They need to go the other way.  Based on the films (even the extended editions), to tell the story properly would take 15 hours minimum.  Ideally, they would make a TV series of it with high production values.

I don't mind them leaving out Tom Bombadil, and I can understand why they left out the Scouring of the Shire.  It would have been a nightmare to film a battle of 80 men and 300 hobbits.  The kind of false perspective tricks you can do with four people playing hobbits wouldn't work on that scale.  The CGI definitely wouldn't have been up to making that look realistic back then.  Not sure it could even now.

I would love to see a version that was true to the book and had enough time to tell the story without leaving anything out.

Hopefully they could get the casting a bit better as well.  It wasn't bad in the films, but some actors did not fit the characters as you read them in the book.  I won't complain too much though.  It could have been a lot worse.  Just imagine Tom Cruise playing Aragorn.

unlikely to happen now Amazon are making the prequal series set in the second age.   Apparently they are not allowed to touch or contradict the established story of the third age at all.   

It only cost then $250m for the rights, which isn't far off what the Jackon Trilogy cost to make

23 years until it's public domain.

WezV

well i am sure Amazon will have  filled in all the backstory by then  

crunchman

WezV said:

well i am sure Amazon will have  filled in all the backstory by then  

The Tolkien estate will try to cash in while they can.  Christopher Tolkien is no longer around.  He stepped down a little while before he died.  It wasn't his decision to sell the rights to Amazon.  It wouldn't surprise me to see pretty continual output of some kind for the next 20 years.

guitargeek62

crunchman said:

WezV said:

well i am sure Amazon will have  filled in all the backstory by then  

The Tolkien estate will try to cash in while they can.  Christopher Tolkien is no longer around.  He stepped down a little while before he died.  It wasn't his decision to sell the rights to Amazon.  It wouldn't surprise me to see pretty continual output of some kind for the next 20 years.

Aye, and probably a further extension of the public domain clause ala Disney

sev112

crunchman said:

Hopefully they could get the casting a bit better as well.  It wasn't bad in the films, but some actors did not fit the characters as you read them in the book.  I won't complain too much though.  It could have been a lot worse.  Just imagine Tom Cruise playing Aragorn.

That’s an interesting point - I’m sure we all have different “visions” of what the characters looked like when we read it.
but I’d be interested in who you (and others ?) think would have been better played by which specific actors / actresses?

Axe_meister

I think Ian McKellen was perfect as Gandalf, Vigo was good as Aragorn but his script could have been more faithful to the book. Bloom was right for Legolas, but the whole superhero thing was a bit much. I'm sorry n two minds about Bean, great actor again wrong protreal of the character I had in my head. Hobbits were good in my mind. Gimli again great actor wrong script.
But I love the film's. Hobbit could/should have been two films and should have dispensed with all the bits not in the book.
Will be interesting to see the second age stuff on Amazon, but I fear it will end up a bit like the Children of Dune series. First age would be far more interesting.

crunchman

Ian McKellen was great.  Frodo and Sam were good.  Not so sure about Merry and Pippin.  That may have been partly the script and the role they were asked to play though.  To my mind, there was a bit too much comic buffoonery with those two.

The big one for me is Aragorn. Viggo Mortenson is a good actor, but Aragorn is supposed to be very tall, and I always imagined him having an English accent.  Like I said above, they didn't cast someone like Tom Cruise in the role and totally ruin the film, so I should be thankful for that.  When you see what Hollywood has done to other books, we got off quite lightly.

Boromir is meant to the the son of the ruler of Gondor, and heir to the throne.  He also comes across as proud.  To my mind, it's more of a part for a stuffy former public schoolboy than a Northerner like Sean Bean.  Again, it wasn't dreadful casting, but I don't think it was perfect.

There are other more minor roles as well.  Liv Tyler should not have been Arwen.  Again I would have gone for someone English.  Someone like Kate Beckinsale may have been good - she would have been late 20s at time of filming.  Depends whether it was before she had ruined her looks with all the plastic surgery.

Other minor but important characters like Denethor, Faramir, and Eowyn were not how I imagine them from the books either.

darthed1981

guitartango said:

@darthed1981 if you are streaming from Amazon do you get the HD Dts Sound ? If not then I still prefer a 4k Blueray or rip.

Typically dolby digital 5.1, nobody is pushing atmos through streams yet for sure.

They will eventually, its just not their market as the people who want it have already invested in the 4k discs, and the bandwidth requirements are very high.

Leiversalone

I just rewatched the extended blu-rays with the filmakers commentaries. Peter Jackson is a genius and a joy to listen to. Really makes you appreciate how difficult it was to cast and film this trilogy, quite a groundbreaking achievement. Without Jackson's background in special effects and camerawork they would never have been so good. In fact I fail to see how they could've been any better. Amazing films. Up there with the original Star Wars films as best trilogy's in movie history. 

crunchman

Leiversalone said:

I just rewatched the extended blu-rays with the filmakers commentaries. Peter Jackson is a genius and a joy to listen to. Really makes you appreciate how difficult it was to cast and film this trilogy, quite a groundbreaking achievement. Without Jackson's background in special effects and camerawork they would never have been so good. In fact I fail to see how they could've been any better. Amazing films. Up there with the original Star Wars films as best trilogy's in movie history. 

Could have stuck closer to the original story.

E.g. manufacturing a bigger role for Arwen.  Giving her Gloflindel's part in the first film, and having Aragorn fall down the cliff to get her into the second film.

The change of Faramir's character was bad as well. The book deliberately contrasts Faramir and Boromir.

Leiversalone

Good points, but I appreciate that novels and film are different and sometimes to make a story work better on the screen changes need to be made. My favourite film is the Shining. It's also my favourite King novel. I would cite them as examples of a story adaptation being almost entirely different in the amount of changes made, but I still enjoy them both. I think you can do this with the LOTR films and the original books. And Gollum is ace!