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.

Comments

Blooper?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

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.

Re:Blooper?

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

Re:Blooper?

[Khomar]

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.

Re:Blooper?

[Tyler Eaves]

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.

Re:Blooper?

[johnbr]

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.

Wait a minute: Eomer wasn't sentenced to death...

[imac.usr]

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.

Bloopers or not...

[Godeke]

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.

because...

[levl289]

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.

Re:The mistakes

[dspeyer]

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?

Cinematic impact

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.