Slashdot Mirror


Interview with Peter Jackson on LoTR Bloopers

erth writes "Newsweek has an interview with Peter Jackson asking him what he thinks about some of the most famous and/or obvious bloopers in the LoTR series. Moviemistakes.com has more Fellowhip of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King bloopers as well for your snickering pleasure." I just wanted to give my props to Jackson and all- we took off early yesterday to see the final film. It was everything I hoped for... except for the bits that I expect I'll have to wait for the extended edition DVD to see. And I was to busy grinning ear to ear to notice any serious bloopers.

19 of 790 comments (clear)

  1. Blooper? by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No blooper is as big as PJ being denied an Oscar these last 2 years.

    If he doesn't get it this year the Oscars will become irrelevant. It's just that obvious.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:Blooper? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll say it.

      Why should Peter Jackson get the Oscar?

      Its a big trilogy. It has very nice CG. Theme music is great.

      But is this worthy of a "Best Director" award?

      Any other reason besides "OMG ITS PETER JACKSON. HE MADE MY CHILDHOOD DREAMS COME TRUE! AIIIEEEEE!"?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:Blooper? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is what will make the Oscars irrelevant? Titanic winning sweeps didn't do it for you? That's just the first thing that leaps to mind. Jesus, best actress for Julia Roberts over Ellen Burstyn didn't set off any alarms?

      C'mon, man, you've got to watch better movies, whether or not LoTR is worthy.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    3. Re:Blooper? by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The movies lack the gravity and emotion of the books

      Well DUH! Show me a movie that does. You can't take 1000+ pages of events that span months and compress them into 9 hours without losing something.

    4. Re:Blooper? by Khomar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe that Peter Jackson deserves the best director because of the amazing amount of quality work that he put into the picture. No director in recent memory has gone to such lengths to push his movie to great heights as has been seen by Peter Jackson. He had fantastic attention to detail in the writing and editing of the script, the presentation of the actors, and the visual details that captured the very spirit of Tolkien's work.

      It is an understatement to say that the movie was massive in scale, and he coordinated everything with amazing skill while keeping the enthusiasm high with all of the people involved. Name me another director this year that has put so much work and accomplished anywhere near the same results. While there are certainly many fine directors out there, Peter Jackson deserves attention for his courage, innovation, and just plain determination. He has created a masterpiece the likes of which we are not likely to see again for many years.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    5. Re:Blooper? by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite.

      Why does he deserve the Oscar?

      Because he did it. LoTR was the most ambitious movie shoot EVER, just about any way you look at it. This was a MASSIVE undertaking. A typical movie shoot runs somewhere between 50 and 90 days. LoTR ran almost a year and half, and that's not counting the many, many, hours of additonal shooting done after early cuts were assembled. Many have tried to do movies on this scale. PJ is remarkable for being the first to pull it off completly. I think the movies have revived a great traditon in filmmaking, the epic, a style perhaps best typified by the David Lean epics of the 1960's (Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence Of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago). Lean did a fantastic job on those pictures, and did amazing things. However, he had the advantage of working in more-or-less the real world. PJ had to invent his world, bring Tolkiens written words to life. He managed to avoid turning LoTR into another Apocolypse Now, a movie, that while grandiose in scope, comes off as disjointed, and at times forced. Jackson managed to do what most had called impossible, bring Tolkiens work to the big screen in a way that is both accessible to the masses, and yet true to the source material. There have been very few movies that have walked that tightrope, and made it to the other side. THAT is why he deserves the Oscar.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    6. Re:Blooper? by johnbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bull hockey. The books (I've read the series at least 5 times in my 33 years) are visionary and epic. But I found the characters in the books generally flat and uninteresting. Boromir, Smeagol, Faramir, Elrond and Aragorn are all much more interesting and complex in the movie than they are in the book. Boromir seems much more distraught over the gravity of his countries peril in the movie. Smeagol's emotions are clearer and more profound. Faramir's emotional bond to his brother and problems with his father are better. Elrond is clearly extremely upset at the prospect of his daughter's mortal peril. Aragorn is uncertain, and worried - in the book he says "I am Isildur's heir, not Isildur himself", while in the movie, it is Arwen who says it to him - because he is afraid of the burden he has to bear. I think PJ did an excellent job making the characters more lifelike and interesting. Re-read the books and imagine that Aragorn in the movie - always perfectly certain of his action, unquestioned by his followers and lacking in any real demonstrable emotion other than humor.

  2. Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death... by imac.usr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One of the comments for "The Two Towers" complains about Eomer somehow having escaped his "...under pain of death" sentence by Grima. I always interpreted this as Eomer merely being banished, and threatened with death should he return. Big difference there.

    --
    I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
  3. Bloopers or not... by Godeke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This has been one of the best book to movie conversions I have seen. Especially considering that this is an incredibly difficult work to start with. The things that were removed wihtout shame (poetry), combined (multitudes of side characters) and left out intentionally, but with a sidelong glance (Tom Bombadill alone causes endless arguments because not enough detail is in the *books* to make a case for what he is supposed to represent. However, one of his poems does sneak into the second movie, although recited by Treebeard) show the dedication put into this movie. It would have been so easy to coast on the later movies (production costs were recovered from the first movie alone), but these are not the products of coasting, but of true affection for the grand story - the story that launched a thousand imitating "great arc fantasy" novels.

    --
    Sig under construction since 1998.
    1. Re:Bloopers or not... by ZaMoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      RotK differed more, not less, IMNSHO.

      ****SPOILERS******

      ****SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS******

      ****DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT ASPECTS SPOILED*****

      Things added in that sucked:
      Gandalf on an Eagle. Merry at the Black Gate. The King of the Dead speaking. Arwen "dying" unless Aragorn finishes Sauron. A Smeagol/Deagol murder scene that lasted far too long (not so much a "sucks 'cause it was added" but a "sucks 'cause it took too bloody long").

      Things removed that sucked:
      No Houses of Healing, no confrontation of Saruman (tho it's in the EE DVD plans, if I heard right...), Sam not using the One Ring, no Scouring. No interplay between Faramir and Eowyn.

      Things changed that sucked:
      Denethor ('Nuff said). Faramir (I complained equally about his treatment in TTT). Sam's comfort level with physical violence done to Smeagol. The light levels overall (There were so many comments along the lines of "It sure is dark out here" when you can clearly see that IT'S NOT DARK. The scenes at the Brandywine Crossing and in Bree were "darker" than any scene on the fields of Pellenor). Galadriel's light equating to a mere Mag Lite. Shelob being FAR smaller than I had ever seen her described in the books. Unending slow-mo scenes. There were several such scenes where a quick Pythonesque cut to an assemblage of Pukel people shouting "Get on with it!" would not have seemed out of place.

      Gripes aside, scenes that rocked:
      Rohirrim charging into the Orc lines. The trebuchets of Minas Tirith. The slaying of the Witch king. Gandalf pulling "a Yoda" and going spin crazy on the walls of MT.

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
  4. Re:The geeks that clapped during the movie/review: by TGK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure if you're trolling or just completely clueless. I'll assume it's the latter.

    1.) LOTR is not set upon this earth. It is set in a world similar to ours in many ways. Nonetheless, the telltale absence of well... pretty much everything in LOTR except Humans would be an excelent indication that Tolkin intended his world to be seperate from ours in its history.

    2.) The Gandalf/Eagle comment is almost below responding to, but here ya go. Three reasons, first because Mordor is infested with all kinds of creapy crawlies, some of them capable of flight (did you watch the 2nd movie?). This would hamper matters. Secondly, because Gandalf would be corrupted by the ring. Thirdly because this would remove one of the fundamental points of the book/movie. To paralell, why couldn't the Rebels simply carpet nuke the death star into scrap? What... they have light speed travel but no nuclear weapons?

    You're basicly objecting to plot holes present in what is universaly reguarded as one of the greatest peices of literature created in the modern age. Perhaps you should lower your standards just a little.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  5. Re:msnbc blooper by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Especially since they were wearing ARMOUR. Fine, their armour may be useless for stopping any sort of sword, knife, arrow, or axe, but it should at least absorb some of the impact of a hand-thrown rock

    --
    ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  6. Well... by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You and the other 10 art majors of the world can hate the movie. It looks like the rest of us that watch movies for enjoyment really liked the movies.

    As for this not being award material, do you think movies like Cold Mountain and Mystic River are?

  7. Re:Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death. by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And by the time they can get together an execution, Theoden has been reawakened by Gandalf. What are you expecting here? That a death sentence means everyone with a sword is supposed to jump at Eomer on sight, risking immediate death themselves rather pause to get organized and risk letting him live another 15 minutes? That a King has less power to commute the sentence his servant passed than a modern day president? That no one in Rohan has noticed that this death sentence didn't come from the king but that slimy guy who's been pushing everyone around, and from what they know of Eomer, he's a stand-up guy?

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  8. I stopped reading sites like these.. by BathTub · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..a few years ago, I got too annoyed at seeing stupid things posted that half the time weren't even mistakes in the movie, just things that the submitter thought was a mistake.

    Plus in some instances it reduced my enjoyment of the film to have the stuff pointed out, where I might not have noticed it otherwise.

    So just a small warning.

  9. because... by levl289 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Let's take your comments apart, and explain to the dimwitted (or the jaded film students who are currently working in retail), exactly why he deserves an award for Best Director:

    Its a big trilogy
    To my understanding (from the extended DVDs), so big, that it took three completely separate locations for filming (aside from the studio sets), combining to stretch out over 14 months. For a single person to (follow me here), direct this massive undertaking, and painstakingly boil it down the the parts that matter requires great directing skills.

    It has very nice CG
    For which the pencil-to-paper decision making goes all the way back to 1997. Again, Jackson was the goto guy that approved this stuff. For someone to put together a team (Weta) that brought about the Ents (prior to which, few artists were able to render to any likeable levels), and the unbelievably detailed Lothlorien, again, takes great directing skills.

    Theme music is great
    Well, it didn't come off of a CD. Again, much time was spent by (of all people) Jackson, in choosing the music and directing its specifics with RE to the movie.

    But is this worthy of a "Best Director" award?
    I can't think of a single movie made in the last decade that is as massive an undertaking as LOTR was. Jackson was the man that directed all of it. Even if you don't appreciate things like its character development, or the music, for one person to be the nexus for this creation, IMO (and clearly, many other lowbrow movie fans), certainly demands recognition.

    --

    Q: What do you think about American Culture?
    A: I think it's a good idea.
    (adapted from Gandhi)

  10. Re:Eagles by wickedj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Other obvious events that showed the power of the Ring:

    The Ring drew the Nazgul to it.

    The Ring caused the Council to argue and fight until Frodo spoke up.

    The Ring corrupted Boromor without him ever touching it.

    Saruman's research into the Rings of Power and his desire for the One ultimately corrupted him. Granted the Palantir didn't help any but by then he was already on his way down.

    Even Gandalf said that if the Ring were to buried under Minis Tirith not used, it would corrupt Gondor and the Ring would burn itself in the mind of Denethor and drive him mad.

    Just thinking of the Ring brings its corruptive powers into play. Carrying it around on a stick is about effective as carrying it on a chain.

  11. Re:The mistakes by dspeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    moviemistakes said:
    Plot hole: How did Shelob's sting get through Frodo if he was wearing his mithril vest? Its obvious he wasn't stung higher or lower than where the vest was.
    But Tolkien said:
    'Yes, I can walk,' said Frodo, getting up slowly, 'I am not hurt, Sam. Only I feel very tired, and I've got a pain here.' He put his hand to the back of his neck above his left shoulder
    So presumably that's where Schlob got him. Since he was facing her, this means she reached around a bit, but she has long arms :-). I haven't sseen the movie yet, but presumably the back of Frodo's neck isn't shown. Maybe it's covered by his hair?
  12. Cinematic impact by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every single one of the things you complain about can have cinematic justifications to give the story more impact.

    # Cheap thrills. For example, in Moria, when all the orcs surround them, and then run away. It's just stupid, it doesn't make any sense.

    It's tension. They're completely surrounded and about to die, then suddenly, all the Orcs run away, signalling something MUCH more evil and powerful approaching that even they fear. It's just some nice tension to give the appearance of the Balrog more impact. You find it "cheesy" because you're a book purist.

    # Cheap action-flick fight scenes. So, there's nine people standing on a narrow staircase out in the middle of nowhere, with thousands of orcs shooting at them, and they all miss. Legolas is shooting at orcs spread out, behind shadows and in cover, and hits every one. Now, orcs aren't as good as elves, but they're not *that* bad.

    There weren't "thousands" of Orcs. Looked like a few dozen. Why wouldn't they be poor archers? They're just a bunch of Moria orcs trying to hit some little targets on a distant bridge. Of course Legolas would hit some (it's not shown whether he hits every one), because he's a skilled Elf bowman. You don't like it because you're a book purist.

    # Cheesy dramatic scenes. Frodo gets hurt, and all the action stops. Gandalf "dies", and all the action stops. Boromir dies three or four times.

    Oh, stop. Borimier dies once. The action stops to give the scenes more impact. My brother who hadn't read the Fellowship, freaked out when Gandalf fell. "I didn't know he died!" In fact, these movies use slow-motion way more tastefully than the two Matrix movies. It gives the death scenes a sense of surrealism.

    All in all, you're just a book purist who didn't like the fact that these are movies and have to behave like movies.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."