The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy (Extended Edition) (2001-2003)

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I would have loved to see that presentation, because it would take a LOT to convince me to make a $300M investment in a director who's previous directing credits were low-budget horror flicks.

But it ended up being the best decision Robert Shaye made as New Line president and was really the last good decision he made.

300m a large sum? More like 900m.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by horizonline

300m a large sum? More like 900m.

No, it was $300 million for all 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lor...s_film_trilogy

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/lotr-pj.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...s_cost_to_make


The first movie alone made $300 million in sales which meant that the other two were pretty much all gravy.

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Yes, I am still in amazement as to how PJ (whose previous directing credits included B-movies like Braindead and Meet the Feebles) was able to convince Robert Shaye that he was the right guy to make a $300 million investment for Lord of the Rings.

Thank goodness it wasn't WB. They I doubt they'd have the guts to make such a gamble.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Thank goodness it wasn't WB. They I doubt they'd have the guts to make such a gamble.

Miramax wanted PJ to condense them into 1 film and they would have said yes... 1 movie... for Lord of the Rings...

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by radagast

No, it was $300 million for all 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lor...s_film_trilogy

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/lotr-pj.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...s_cost_to_make


The first movie alone made $300 million in sales which meant that the other two were pretty much all gravy.

Your talking about one film with regards to investment meaning for my reply that 300m is a large sum for someone making the investment.

Lets look again. ^ I said the sum total of 300m is not a large sum. If your a writer, a producer, or a director and you want someone involved on your project than 300m will be a fraction of your investment depending on how many there are. In other words, the investment is not always the difference between a risk of doing well and not doing well. I would consider 900m an investment that I would exercise caution with, and make sure your product is worth releasing.

[Aerodude73]

A few mins. after 4pm, my front door opened & I saw the UPS guy walking away.

[Show spoiler]I kind of knew what it was & had to go out my back door & around to get it (my massive BD case is kind of in the way of the front door opening fully)

.


So I opened the pkg & here is what I found:

[Show spoiler]LOTR_SET_ARRIVAL.jpg

LOTR_SET_OPEN_BOX_ALL_DISCS.jpg

LOTR_SET_OPEN_BOX.jpg

Beautifully put together set, no dings, marks, nothing.

[JTStarkiller]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

In my opinion, Tolkien's story is perfect. And as Radagast pointed out to me sometime ago, reminding me of some of the comments that she made on the Appendices. Thinking so much of herself that she actually points out some of Tolkiens weaknesses and actually improves them for the screenplay.

Now if she would actually say something like "I think this worked better for the dramatic element we were going for in the film" thats one thing, but to say Tolkien's version wasn't good, mine is better, is just pure crap.

Right yeah, okay. I need to watch some of the Appendices again. I suppose it's been nearly eight or nine years since I've watched that stuff from the Fellowship DVD. Will have to revisit those once I'm done with the films themselves.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Hobbun

My point is I felt the physical powers of Sauron’s army was too great for the opposers (good people of Middle-Earth) to be effective. So wouldn’t Gandalf do something to even the scales? Or did he feel confident (know) that Aragon was going to be returning with his undead army to save the day?

The physical power of Sauron's army was too great. Gandalf did not have to do anything to even the scales, due to another theme that runs through the story. That theme is very subtle; there is always something else at work. That something, of course, is "The One", or "The Authority", (i.e. "God"). In the case of Middle-earth, this is not implied to be a Zeus-like physical being, but is without form and is a timeless, description-defying "process" from which creation occurs. My favorite part of the movie occurs when Gandalf hints about this topic while talking to Frodo in Moria ("you were meant to find the Ring - and that is an encouraging thought"). Meant? By whom - or what? Minimal action, but absolutely huge implications, and masterfully filmed by Jackson and acted by Ian McKellen.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

In my opinion, Tolkien's story is perfect. And as Radagast pointed out to me sometime ago, reminding me of some of the comments that she made on the Appendices. Thinking so much of herself that she actually points out some of Tolkiens weaknesses and actually improves them for the screenplay.

Now if she would actually say something like "I think this worked better for the dramatic element we were going for in the film" thats one thing, but to say Tolkien's version wasn't good, mine is better, is just pure crap.

Which part of the Appendices does Boyens say that? I didn't hear it during the first two involving Fellowship.

Edit: Are there subtitles for the Appendices on the EE DVD set?

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

In my opinion, Tolkien's story is perfect. And as Radagast pointed out to me sometime ago, reminding me of some of the comments that she made on the Appendices. Thinking so much of herself that she actually points out some of Tolkiens weaknesses and actually improves them for the screenplay.

Now if she would actually say something like "I think this worked better for the dramatic element we were going for in the film" thats one thing, but to say Tolkien's version wasn't good, mine is better, is just pure crap.

I agree the way she said it was a bit arrogant.

But I don't really have a problem with the sentiment. No work, including Tolkien's, is ever truly perfect as everyone has their own preferences etc.

I can't think of any book I've ever read, or any movie I've ever watched etc., that I couldn't think of some things I'd change if I were remaking it or adapting it myself.

I'm not so delusional to think that the changes I'd make would be ones everyone would agree with though, and I probably wouldn't make that kind of arrogant statement about it on camera though. At most I'd say something more along the lines of what you suggested or simply saying that it was a change that I personally thought helped my version of the story along etc.

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The physical power of Sauron's army was too great. Gandalf did not have to do anything to even the scales, due to another theme that runs through the story. That theme is very subtle; there is always something else at work. That something, of course, is "The One", or "The Authority", (i.e. "God"). In the case of Middle-earth, this is not implied to be a Zeus-like physical being, but is without form and is a timeless, description-defying "process" from which creation occurs. My favorite part of the movie occurs when Gandalf hints about this topic while talking to Frodo in Moria ("you were meant to find the Ring - and that is an encouraging thought"). Meant? By whom - or what? Minimal action, but absolutely huge implications, and masterfully filmed by Jackson and acted by Ian McKellen.

Yep, that's definitely there. It's one of many reasons I'm not as captivated by the mythos as you and other's are. Being an athiest I never care for those kind of religious mythos in stories. In LOTR it's mostly low key, so it didn't at all hinder my enjoyment of the book or movies. Unlike say Chronicles of Narnia where the religious themes--and christian themes in particular--killed my enjoyment of those books.

I generally prefer stories where gods have no role period. But can stomach ones like LOTR where it's at least very much in the background and really only there for people who really want to focus on the mythos/theology/philosophy of the story rather than just focusing on the main plot.

[vidjunkie]

I know this is off topic a little LOL, but it sure would be nice if Peter Jackson tackled something in the Shannara Series after the Hobbit films.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Aerodude73

A few mins. after 4pm, my front door opened & I saw the UPS guy walking away.

[Show spoiler]I kind of knew what it was & had to go out my back door & around to get it (my massive BD case is kind of in the way of the front door opening fully)

.

So I opened the pkg & here is what I found:

[Show spoiler]Attachment 34992

Attachment 34993

Attachment 34994

Beautifully put together set, no dings, marks, nothing.

That is a nice chair.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

In my opinion, Tolkien's story is perfect. And as Radagast pointed out to me sometime ago, reminding me of some of the comments that she made on the Appendices. Thinking so much of herself that she actually points out some of Tolkiens weaknesses and actually improves them for the screenplay.

Nothing is perfect, although it's fair to call Tolkien an amazing worldbuilder and an amazing wordsmith. The writers did improve on Tolkien in some areas for films aimed at mass audiences. Now those weren't necessarily weaknesses in the novels, but could have been for what the films needed to be.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

I was watching the bonus features and from a distance (a must for 480p) the colors of Fellowship look better.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

Nothing is perfect, although it's fair to call Tolkien an amazing worldbuilder and an amazing wordsmith. The writers did improve on Tolkien in some areas for a film aimed at mass audiences. Now those weren't necessarily weaknesses in the novels, but could have been for what the films needed to be.

Agreed - in a way hes like George Lucas who had an amazing imagination and somehow got it on paper or whatever. Tolken rocked at that.

I wonder what kind of a director Tolken would have been? Hmmm....

[STRYKKER]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I was watching the bonus features and from a distance (a must for 480p) the colors of Fellowship look better.

PLEASE>>>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....NOT AGAIN

[WorkShed]

Originally Posted by JLTucker

I was watching the bonus features and from a distance (a must for 480p) the colors of Fellowship look better.

I'm surprised to see this from you...

[Nicolas554]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yep, that's definitely there. It's one of many reasons I'm not as captivated by the mythos as you and other's are. Being an athiest I never care for those kind of religious mythos in stories. In LOTR it's mostly low key, so it didn't at all hinder my enjoyment of the book or movies. Unlike say Chronicles of Narnia where the religious themes--and christian themes in particular--killed my enjoyment of those books.

I generally prefer stories where gods have no role period. But can stomach ones like LOTR where it's at least very much in the background and really only there for people who really want to focus on the mythos/theology/philosophy of the story rather than just focusing on the main plot.

Personally i like the mythos in the LOTR and i'd like more reference to it. And I don't belive in god at all in real life. For me god is just an invention of men, it's something that doesn't and can't exist, it belong to fairy tales. And that's why i like it in a story like LOTR, it's a fantasy world in which there is some form of gods. Just my 2 cents

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by Nicolas554

Personally i like the mythos in the LOTR and i'd like more reference to it. And I don't belive in god at all in real life. For me god is just an invention of men, it's something that can't exist, it belong to fairy tales. And that's why i like it in a story like LOTR, it's a fantasy world in which there is some form of gods. Just my 2 cents

I do agree with that, and that's why it didn't really bother me in LOTR as it's in the background and very fairy-taleish. Vs. say Narnia where it was too much of a christian allegory for my liking. I usually don't mind gods in fantasy books unless their too directly allegories of real world organized religions. Or if they play too big a role in helping or hindering the characters as I'm just not much into that kind of supernatural divine intervention stuff. The magic in fantasy is enough, and I prefer things like Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire where the magic is more low key. And LOTR is similar on that regard as the Magic isn't very prevalent.