# A LoTR Inspired Fantasy Movie Renaissance - What Happened?



## nikolai (Nov 24, 2003)

I remember when the _Fellowship of the Ring_ came out, to pretty wide popular and critical acclaim, there was talk about how Fantasy was the next big thing in movies and it was going to trigger the production other films. Now, what happened? Have there been any of them? are any of them in the pipeline? It seems to me that sadly there hasn't been an effect at all.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Nov 24, 2003)

_King Conan: Crown of Iron_ is still being made, although it won't be starring Arnold.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 24, 2003)

Chronicles of Narnia (at least Lion, Witch & Wardrobe) in production now, I think, or close to it.

Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series in development I think.

Seems like I heard someone was going to do an Elric/Melnibone movie.

These things do take time.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 24, 2003)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> These things do take time.




Indeed. Remember that after Star Wars everyone wanted to jump on the scifi bandwagon, which brought us such dubious classics as Disney's Black Hole, Flash Gordon, and Star Trek the Motion Picture (probably the second worst Star Trek movie made to date). I agree that it would be nice to havemore fantasy movies, but I for one would rather have something done well, like Lord of the Rings, rather than something that is simply done, like the Dungeons and Dragons movie.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 24, 2003)

An Elric movie????!!!!!


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 24, 2003)

Plus, imagine that you do have a fantasy movie all ready to go -- are you gonna release it in the same year as RotK??  That would be suicide!


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 24, 2003)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> An Elric movie????!!!!!




Indeed, though only "optioned" at this point as far as I know.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/24/film.elric.reut/


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 24, 2003)

And here's some Narnia movie info:  http://www.narniaweb.com/content.asp?id=2


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 24, 2003)

Wow.


----------



## KenM (Nov 24, 2003)

And remember, the DnD  movie sequel is in the works.............


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 24, 2003)

Remember, LotR was considered a rather risky venture up until it was released and proved to be a success.  I'm sure only after it proved successful did other movies studios decide Fantasy was worth a big-time investent.  And, as stated above, it takes time to make a movie.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 24, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> And remember, the DnD  movie sequel is in the works.............



 I just pray that is not a 'sequal'.  Rather, I would prefer they pretend the first one didn't exist.


----------



## EricNoah (Nov 24, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> And remember, the DnD  movie sequel is in the works.............




Oh, yeah -- thanks for the warning!


----------



## Krug (Nov 24, 2003)

Didn't John Woo option *The Runelords*?


----------



## s/LaSH (Nov 24, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Didn't John Woo option *The Runelords*?




I dunno.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2003)

Does _Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl_ counts?

You have to remember, to make something as fantastic like the _Lord of the Rings_ is a long-term project. It started way back in 1998 with pre-production that includes turning a farmland into Hobbiton and let the transplanted vegetation grow for one year so as if to look like it has been there.

And let us not forget the _D&D_ movie debacle. That pretty much set the entire Fantasy genre two step backward.

Personally, if someone were to do a _Dragonlance_ film project, I think Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman should get off their six and start documenting appendix notes, although they may not be as well-detailed and semi-organized as Tolkien. You see, the motivation for Tolkien is that he truly wants to create a mythology for England, so he goes into the project trying to build a sense of history into the Middle-Earth myth, despite the fact that he is a poor story writer.

So, I'm hoping that Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman start writing about the languages of the Qualinesti and the Silvanesti, as well as the Draconic Speech used by the corrupt Draconians as well as the noble metallic dragons. Perhaps they could try and collect the other author's works contributing to the _Dragonlance_ lore and make them fit together.

It has to be a lot of work for a fantasy film to do well in the box office.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Nov 25, 2003)

Baraendur said:
			
		

> Star Trek the Motion Picture (probably the second worst Star Trek movie made to date)




[Geek]
Compared to such masterpieces as Star Trek: Nemesis, Star Trek: Insurrection, Star Trek: Generations, Star Trek: First Contact, Star Trek: Why in the hell does God need a space ship, and Star Trek: You can look for Spock, but you can't make me care?

You really don't want to open this can of worms, do you?   

[/Geek]


----------



## Red Baron (Nov 25, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> You see, the motivation for Tolkien is that he truly wants to create a mythology for England, so he goes into the project trying to build a sense of history into the Middle-Earth myth, despite the fact that he is a poor story writer.





Two things to say: 

1. YMMV.

2. I happened to enjoy the first Dragonlance trilogy, but I'm afraid that, IMHO, placing it in the same realm as Tolkien is just silly.

Sorry, three things.

3. You might consider qualifying highly debatable assertions regarding the relative merit of things like literary value.

No hard feelings.

Cheers,


----------



## jester47 (Nov 25, 2003)

Well, there has not been much strict fantasy, but there has been a lot of fantastic stuff out:

Pirates of the Carribean
Xmen
Spider man
Hulk
2 star wars movies 
2 harry potter movies
Final Fantasy
and numerous others, good and bad.

And I am sure all this was getting underway when they were gearing up middle earth, thus indicating to me that the more fantastic movies were already a trend.  

So I would suspect that the success of LotR has extended this hayday of fantastic film.  

All in all, this decade is turning out to be a great decade for geeks, nerds, weirdos and fanboys.

Aaron.


----------



## garyh (Nov 26, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Does _Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl_ counts?




I say yes.  Undead pirates and cursed treasure, a blacksmith swept up into adventure... sure sounds like a game of D&D _I'd_ like to play.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 26, 2003)

Red Baron said:
			
		

> Two things to say:
> 
> 1. YMMV.



That's fine.




			
				Red Baron said:
			
		

> 2. I happened to enjoy the first Dragonlance trilogy, but I'm afraid that, IMHO, placing it in the same realm as Tolkien is just silly.



I'm not suggesting that they try to put _DL_ (which I love so dearly, because they're the first fantasy trilogy I've read) on the same pedestal as Tolkien's work. All I'm asking is they lay out all the details of the world as a foundation for any filmmakers who wants to take the chance to put it on-screen in vivid colors and sounds.

Besides, the last time we let someone do a _D&D_ films, it was this director Courtney Solomon putting his own stories with no foundation at all (based on one of his past gaming sessions). The only thing he adapt is pure rules and that's it. I mean crunch is good for gamers, but for audience that wants to listen to the stories, there has to be more fluff to it.




			
				Red Baron said:
			
		

> 3. You might consider qualifying highly debatable assertions regarding the relative merit of things like literary value.



Hey, I'm just a messenger. After having gone through _TTT_ Appendices DVDs that come with the Extended Edition, most of the critics have agreed that if Tolkien were alive today and turn this work to a modern-day publisher rather than 50 years ago, he wouldn't get past the front door.

But that is just there opinions. As for myself, While I love reading them, sometimes I have to skip many of the songs and poems and minor chit-chat to get to the heart of the story.




			
				Red Baron said:
			
		

> No hard feelings.



None taken. I'm just telling you what the movie audience want, not just the hardcore genre fans. We genre fans already know the backstory, but the audience don't.

Now, I would love the _Dragonlance_ films be made before my time, but if we can a very qualified director who would treat the literary works with just as much sacrosanct as Peter Jackson (fat chance on calling him again anytime soon, as the long-term _LOTR_ project really took a toll on his large hobbitish body) and bring Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman to develop the races' languages (I mean in order to make them believable on-screen you gotta let them speak in their own tongue sometimes) as well as denizens of Krynn and all the details (heck bring aboard Larry Elmore and Stawicki for concept arts), it would be just as nearly as epic as _LOTR_ with a strong box office success indicator.


----------



## Tallok (Nov 26, 2003)

Krug said:
			
		

> Didn't John Woo option *The Runelords*?



 That could actually work as a movie, pretty well, iirc, even though I did read that a while ago


----------



## Speaker (Nov 26, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> ..most of the critics have agreed that if Tolkien were alive today and turn this work to a modern-day publisher rather than 50 years ago, he wouldn't get past the front door.




Something that says more about modern-day publishers then it does about Tolkien .

All joking aside, I'd count Troy in as a fantasy-type movie to look out for.  Epic in natue, dealing with gods and war - it's a good time to be watching movies.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Nov 26, 2003)

When I find some time on Thursday, I'll post links to the many fantasy movies in development that I own stock in on the Hollywood Stock Exchange.


----------



## Arken (Nov 26, 2003)

They're doing a live action version of The Last Unicorn aswell which should be amazingly awesome...


----------



## Henry (Nov 26, 2003)

LOTR didn't make fantasy immensely popular - it made it VIABLE. Fantasy as a movie genre is a red-headed stepchild, with Sci-Fi being the poorer, yet very acceptable middle-class cousin. Comic Book is huge right now (Spider-Man, Hulk, Blade 2, Punisher, Hellboy, others I'm sure I'm missing), and we are, for fantasy, seeing now movies like Troy, which would previously not likely have had the possiblity for name actors.


----------



## TiQuinn (Nov 26, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> and we are, for fantasy, seeing now movies like Troy, which would previously not likely have had the possiblity for name actors.




"Gladiator", while not a fantasy movie, helped kick off this trend.  Probably moreso than LotR.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Nov 26, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm just a messenger. After having gone through _TTT_ Appendices DVDs that come with the Extended Edition, most of the critics have agreed that if Tolkien were alive today and turn this work to a modern-day publisher rather than 50 years ago, he wouldn't get past the front door.




_Most_ of the critics didn't get to voice their opinions in the TTT documentaries.  But one of those who did was Tom Shippey, who's written two entire books on the subject of literary "critics" not knowing one of the most important and enduring works of the 20th century from their swollen red bottoms.

Yeah, it's hard to imagine LotR being published now - but then, it was pretty amazing that Allen & Unwin let it happen back in the 50s.


----------



## Mercule (Nov 26, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Now, I would love the _Dragonlance_ films be made before my time,



You know, I'm not even a particular DL fanboy, and I'd love to see a movie made from the first trilogy (since I had zero empathy for any of the Majeres, the other books are a waste for me).

The deal is that the DL books are at least novels that could make it without the backing of D&D fanboys.  Let's face it, most of the novels written for gaming properties are B-movie quality, at best.  Far too many of them are at the same level in the book world that the _D&D_ movie was in the movie world.  This applies regardless of the game it's based on, Storyteller, D&D, or what have you.

The Drizz't novels are the only other novels I can think of that _might_ qualify.  Think about it, though, do you really want the Avatar trilogy or _I, Strahd_ used to represent gaming?


----------



## Jamdin (Nov 26, 2003)

The live-action Peter Pan movie is due out soon and that is fantasy. It may not have tons of elves and orcs but it is based on a children's fantasy book.


----------



## Endur (Nov 27, 2003)

I agree that Dragonlane will be a blockbuster film.  The D&D movie was crap.  Had they based it on DragonLance, they would have been raking in money.

With regards to Tolkien, remember that before Tolkien, fantasy consisted of Cthulu, Doc Savage, Tarzan, and Conan.  

Tolkien created the modern day fantasy genre.  And yes, he most certainly would have gotten through a modern-day publisher.  The critics who make those claims don't know what they are talking about.



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Hey, I'm just a messenger. After having gone through _TTT_ Appendices DVDs that come with the Extended Edition, most of the critics have agreed that if Tolkien were alive today and turn this work to a modern-day publisher rather than 50 years ago, he wouldn't get past the front door.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 27, 2003)

I dunno. In all honesty, I wouldn't let Courtney Solomon anywhere near a _Dragonlance_ film project. To me, he's like Brannon Braga ... someone who thinks he can revive and strengthen the franchise but can only lead it to ruin. Had HE done _DL_ instead of that other film, knowing that he would put his OWN spin to the story, I'd have walked out of the theater in disgust.

As for the critics, you may be right. But I know from my own reading experience, I usually skip over the songs written in the book. I mean once I know they're camping, that's great and I want to move on to see what happens next.


----------



## KenM (Nov 28, 2003)

Sorry to get a little off topic. Part of the reason the DnD movie was total crap was it was the directors very first movie. He is a DnD fanboy, and bought the rights for a DnD movie as soon as He could and based it on his own games he played in. 
  He should have done what Steven Speilberg did with Shindlers(SP?) List. When Steven was just starting out, he bought the rights to that movie, but He waited until he had some directing experence and knew what He was doing because he did not want to make a bad adaptation.


----------



## Skade (Nov 28, 2003)

Arken said:
			
		

> They're doing a live action version of The Last Unicorn aswell which should be amazingly awesome...



 Will they keep the America Soundtrack?  I loved those songs, especially Man's Road.  For that matter, will characters break into song?  

I'll certainly go see it, as the original, and the novel, are among my favorites, but I worry about it also.  I do so want to the the Red Bull in all it's Balrog like glory.

Totally as aside, I think its cool that a poster called Arken is posting about a cartoon that had a character voiced by Allen Arken.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Nov 28, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> Tolkien created the modern day fantasy genre.  And yes, he most certainly would have gotten through a modern-day publisher.  The critics who make those claims don't know what they are talking about.




I think it's Brian Sibley who comes right out and says that in the documentaries.  He's not so much a critic as a Tolkien cheerleader.  Nonetheless, much of the commentary by other Tolkien scholars on the discs support the notion - which has at least some validity, really, though possibly no more so today than it was in the 50s.

The idea being that publishers are less daring nowadays and more prone to looking strictly at the bottom line.  Which may be true, but I think it's really impossible to say whether or not LotR could have gotten published today, since Tolkien's own impact on the field of fantasy has shaped it to such a great degree that it's almost unrecognizable now.

And remember that, if not for Tolkien, there would have been no D&D, though there may have been Roleplaying Games of some sort (M. A. R. Barker was experimenting with something like RPGs as far back as the late 60s, and his work grew up pretty much independently of Tolkien's.)

Which makes for interesting speculation, really... what kind of hobby would we have today if the great groundbreaking game, and thus the primary formative influence on RPGs, had been _Empire of the Petal Throne_ instead of D&D?


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Nov 28, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> LOTR didn't make fantasy immensely popular - it made it VIABLE. Fantasy as a movie genre is a red-headed stepchild, with Sci-Fi being the poorer, yet very acceptable middle-class cousin. Comic Book is huge right now (Spider-Man, Hulk, Blade 2, Punisher, Hellboy, others I'm sure I'm missing), and we are, for fantasy, seeing now movies like Troy, which would previously not likely have had the possiblity for name actors.




I'd like to learn more about _Troy_ (which does look like it'll be worth seeing,) before lumping it into any genre other than fairly traditional Hollywood historical epics.  If it's taken straight out of the Illiad, then it'll have some fantasy elements - but it might play more like _Braveheart_ or _Spartacus_, as a straight historical movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 28, 2003)

Arken said:
			
		

> They're doing a live action version of The Last Unicorn aswell which should be amazingly awesome...



Right. Unless it totally sucks. Where Hollywood is involved, that possibility is never very far off.

Couple of observations -- fantasy movies are EXPENSIVE. They're FAR more expensive than, say, sci-fi movies, because in a sci-fi movie you can put everybody in polyester jumpsuits, film the whole thing in a warehouse, add some cheap effects shots of spaceships that don't have to match anything else, and you're done.

A fantasy movie you'll need period costumes of SOME sort, weapons of some sort, maybe horses, rustic-looking sets, exteriors without modern building in the background, animals and if you use any effects shots they're going to have to integrate into SOMETHING -- even just plain old matte paintings have to look a million times better than a starfield if you're going to avoid howls of laughter from your audience.

Now, sure, if you're shooting in New Zealand, which had low wages, a skilled workforce that until just recently had been working on two fantasy-based TV series and so had tons of experience making costumes and whatnot (Ngila Dickson was costume designer on Xena before joining LotR), you've got a genius like Peter Jackson on board, temporary insanity among the New Line executives AND are in possession of the single most valuable property in literary history (okay, maybe not, but you could probably make a reasonable case for that based on book sales alone) -- THEN you can get the money to make a really good fantasy picture.

If you have seven years and completely insane partners.

Fantasy movies are hard. Especially with today's audiences -- Harryhausen stop-motion effects just won't cut it anymore, they're too savvy and they demand too much realism from their images.

I am deeply suspicious of the idea that a _Dragonlance_ movie would make money. These are not HUGELY popular novels. Popular, to be sure, but a novel has to be huge before it makes a viable movie property.

That's not to say you can't make a successful film from a little-known novel, but you'll have a very hard time getting anybody to invest in it. If you go to the executives at a major studio and say, "There's these books that TSR put out, they were really popular back when and we should make movie about them," you'll get tossed out on the street.

Courtney Solomon owns the rights to _Dungeons and Dragons_ and had a time getting anyone to invest. Of course, wanting to direct it himself probably didn't do him any favours. I salute him for that, and am looking forward eagerly to the next one.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (Nov 29, 2003)

Barsoomcore, I was with you right up to the last sentence...


----------



## nikolai (Nov 29, 2003)

Can I ask what the Last Unicorn is? It seems common knowledge among you lot, but I haven't a clue!


----------



## KenM (Nov 29, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Can I ask what the Last Unicorn is? It seems common knowledge among you lot, but I haven't a clue!




  It was an animated fantasy film done in the mid 1980's, I think around 1984. I think it was based on a novel. I heard good things about the movie but never seen it. You can probibly find it on VHS for rent. Don't know if its on DVD.


----------



## barsoomcore (Nov 29, 2003)

Assenpfeffer said:
			
		

> Barsoomcore, I was with you right up to the last sentence...



 Yeah, yeah, I'm the lonely Courtney Solomon booster. Gotten used to my role.

I liked the movie because it perfectly reminded me of the sort of games we ran when I was a teenager where nothing made a lot of sense, total strangers just sort of looked at each other and said, "Okay, we'll go off into unknown dangers together, why not?" and it was pretty lame but we were just having too much fun to care.

Yay.


----------



## Kesh (Dec 1, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> and Tracy Hickman should get off their six and start documenting appendix notes, although they may not be as well-detailed and semi-organized as Tolkien. You see, the motivation for Tolkien is that he truly wants to create a mythology for England, so he goes into the project trying to build a sense of history into the Middle-Earth myth, despite the fact that he is a poor story writer.
> 
> So, I'm hoping that Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman start writing about the languages of the Qualinesti and the Silvanesti, as well as the Draconic Speech used by the corrupt Draconians as well as the noble metallic dragons. Perhaps they could try and collect the other author's works contributing to the _Dragonlance_ lore and make them fit together.




Sorry, but you might want to pick up a copy of "The Annotated Chronicles" and "The Annotated Legends" at your local library sometime. They come right out and say, "Yeah, we were just making it up as we went along. Sure, Solamnic is based on Latin, and we've thrown some Indonesian sounds into (language x), but we were mostly trying to make it look good." (Paraphrased, of course.  )

That being said, I agree that a DL trilogy (or double-trilogy, to include Legends) would rock. The history is as extensive, if not moreso, than that of Middle Earth. And now we've got the FX technology to do it right. Though I pity the person who has to play Raistlin with those hourglass contact lenses. 

My biggest concern, though, is the religious connotations brought up in some places. If the churches railed on Tolkien, they'd go absolutely frothing at the mouth over some of the things brought up in _Dragonlance_. Especially the scene where 



Spoiler



Tanis bows down to worship Tahkisis, because she is, after all, a god.


 Or, the 



Spoiler



entire premise behind the Cataclysm and the Kingpriest


. The latter is actually a very good point, and really makes some arguments people should consider... but a lot of churches will just scream "magic BAD! Work of the Devil!" and create a general fuss about such a film.


----------



## Mercule (Dec 1, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Courtney Solomon owns the rights to _Dungeons and Dragons_



Still?!?! Quick, we must wrest it away from him. Man, back when people were trying to spend all of Russ' money for the boards, someone could have thrown this out and it might have flown. 

_Edit: grammar_


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 1, 2003)

Makes me glad I'm a moderate-to-lapse Catholic.

Many religious groups railed on almost everything that does not conform to their narrow views, from _Harry Potter_ to _Xena._ It would have been a lot better to have a discussion about it, rather than the clergy get to make a ruling and the laypeople must obey it unconditionally, without question nor objection.

Trust me when I say, questioning your religious leader is not a sin to the Man Upstair.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 1, 2003)

If *I* owned the movie rights to "Dungeons and Dragons", it'd take a lot more than $16,000 to pry it loose from me.

I mean, heck, he's managed to use it to gain _millions_ -- TWICE! -- in order to make pictures.

Good for him.


----------



## CCamfield (Dec 2, 2003)

Endur said:
			
		

> <snip>
> With regards to Tolkien, remember that before Tolkien, fantasy consisted of Cthulu, Doc Savage, Tarzan, and Conan.




Aside from the fact that I'd argue Conan is the only one of those characters who could really be considered fantasy, this ignores authors like Lord Dunsany (The King of Elfland's Daughter), E. R. Eddison (The Worm Ouroboros), William Hope Hodgson, and others.

Which isn't to say that Tolkien wasn't the author on whom modern fantasy is based, but there was a little more going on before him than that.  The King of Elfland's Daughter and The Worm Ouroboros are, in my opinion, _fantastic_ books.  (No pun intended.)


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 2, 2003)

Personally, I'm super excited about Peter Jackson's NEXT project--the one that he REALLY passionate about--a remake of the the original 1933 King Kong.  Imagine the scenes with the tyrannosaurus rex in Jurassic Park and how awesome it looked--now imagine the t-rex being just as awesome or maybe even moreso, and then getting its ass handed to it by a giant ape!  It's gonna be great!  Naomi Watts has already signed on for the Fay Wray part and I read that Jackson received something like $20 million himself to write and direct it.  I've seen pictures of some of the maquettes and production designs that Weta did for this way back before Jackson was forced to move on other projects and eventually to LotR and they were absolutely AMAZING.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 2, 2003)

I dunno. I've already seen two versions of _King Kong._

BTW, rumor has it that New Line Cinema is mulling over the _Hobbit_ film and Peter Jackson is interested but only after he is done with _King Kong,_ a project that he is already committed.


----------



## jaldaen (Dec 2, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Makes me glad I'm a moderate-to-lapse Catholic.
> 
> Many religious groups railed on almost everything that does not conform to their narrow views, from _Harry Potter_ to _Xena._ It would have been a lot better to have a discussion about it, rather than the clergy get to make a ruling and the laypeople must obey it unconditionally, without question nor objection.
> 
> Trust me when I say, questioning your religious leader is not a sin to the Man Upstair.




Actually the Catholic Church came out and said that Harry Potter was a good series of books... in fact here's an article about it online:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/harrypotter/news/0,10608,888674,00.html

I don't know about Xena, but the Catholic Church hardly ever comes out against a particular book or movie unless it is obviously blasphemous. I just wanted to clear that up so that people understand that the Catholic church does not typically rail against books, movies, and TV series... or at least not from my research into this question.

My 2 cents,
Jaldaen


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 2, 2003)

To which I still reinforce my earlier statement.

P.S. I know, I know. I have to find a way to reconnect with my church other than just attending holiday mass services.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 2, 2003)

Arken said:
			
		

> They're doing a live action version of The Last Unicorn aswell which should be amazingly awesome...




That will be awesome if they don't kiddify it.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 3, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> I read that Jackson received something like $20 million himself to write and direct it.



Actually, the deal is a package for Peter, Fran and Philippa to produce and write, and Peter to direct. And it's $20 million versus 20 percent of the gross, whichever is greater.

Basically, the studio is buying the whole movie, minus actors' salaries, for that price, since Peter's companies such as WETA will provide all of the technical support and FX, costumes, etc. That's included in the deal.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 3, 2003)

It's a deal looked on with some dismay by the other studios, but New Line seems confident -- and frankly, I don't blame them. After what PJ accomplished with LotR -- the logistics alone, let alone the final product -- it's clear he can manage the big productions and stay on top of things. He and Fran and Philippa and WETA are a proven team now, and I think the griping of the other studios is just sour grapes.

They wish THEY had a Peter Jackson on their distribution sched.

It's interesting, though PJ is turning into sort of an old-style studio -- an one-stop shop for film-making. I wonder how viable a business model that's going to be. Once you've set up all the workshops and trained all the people and acquired all the tools -- how do you keep them all busy and paid? It'll be interesting to watch.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 3, 2003)

Considering that they are based in New Zealand, whose landscape can vary from tropical to arctic, it shouldn't be that difficult. The catch is trying to get Hollywood producers to do their films there. It is something that even Hawaii is also on the market for location shooting and have invested in building soundstage and editing studios so that the film crew don't have to commute over the Pacific.


----------



## Rackhir (Dec 4, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by nikolai
> Can I ask what the Last Unicorn is? It seems common knowledge among you lot, but I haven't a clue!






			
				KenM said:
			
		

> It was an animated fantasy film done in the mid 1980's, I think around 1984. I think it was based on a novel. I heard good things about the movie but never seen it. You can probibly find it on VHS for rent. Don't know if its on DVD.




The original book was written by Peter S. Beagle and is one of my all time favorite books. You should be able to find a copy at your local Borders/B&N. 

The movie has not been re-released on DVD in the US, but the video tape is still available. Here's a link.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-6667069-8935824?v=glance&s=video

On E-bay you can find a region-0 DVD, but I doubt if this is actually a "legitimate" release. There are a number of "The Last Unicorn" items available on there. I HIGHLY recommend the soundtrack CD. 

The animated movie version was a terrific adaptation of the book. It has that classic Ranken-Bass look, which seemed to suit the story very well. Understandably it left out some of the minor plot events, but was extremely faithful to the book and as mentioned the songs by America were fantastic and really helped set the mood of the various scenes in the movie. There are few songs more melancholy than "Man's Road" and it perfectly suited the Unicorn as she searched for others of her kind and was finding nothing. The movie pretty much covers all the bases. It's funny as hell, extremely touching, very romantic, a supurb soundtrack and has some truly spine-tingling moments. 

The only real flaw in the movie are the one or two songs that are actually sung by the actors. Unfortunately, neither Jeff Bridges nor Mia Farrow are trained singers, but they do a tolerable job.

Note: If you are sensitive, have plenty of tissues on hand. The end of the movie is heartbreaking.

Warning mild Spoiler

```
[COLOR=Black]My favorite little tidbit from book, that didn't make it into the movie is Shmendrick's origin. He's actually immortal, which is why he said in the movie "Whatever can die is beautiful -- more beautiful than a unicorn, who lives forever, and who is the most beautiful creature in the world. " Also it's why he was so excited at being able to summon "Robin Hood". He was gifted/cursed with immortality by his master. Who had come to the conclusion that Schmendrick was so monumentally incompetent at magic that Shmendrick had to possess the greatest powers of any wizard ever. So he made him immortal until he could finally unlock his powers. The end of the book has a great line about how he was finally able to unlock his powers that involves Prince Lyr.[/COLOR]

The thought of a live action version makes me uneasy. Few Directors/Producers/Script Writers/Studio Execs/stagehands, can resist the urge to meddle and make changes in an attempt to justify their existance. Also the animated version so beautifully captured the feel and heart of the book, that I'm hard pressed to see how a live action version is going to improve things. I'd LOVE to be wrong like I was with LotR, but I'm afraid that the odds are heavily stacked against it.

So to sum up. Watch the movie then read the book. You won't be disapointed.
```


----------



## John Crichton (Dec 4, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Couple of observations -- fantasy movies are EXPENSIVE. They're FAR more expensive than, say, sci-fi movies, because in a sci-fi movie you can put everybody in polyester jumpsuits, film the whole thing in a warehouse, add some cheap effects shots of spaceships that don't have to match anything else, and you're done.
> 
> A fantasy movie you'll need period costumes of SOME sort, weapons of some sort, maybe horses, rustic-looking sets, exteriors without modern building in the background, animals and if you use any effects shots they're going to have to integrate into SOMETHING -- even just plain old matte paintings have to look a million times better than a starfield if you're going to avoid howls of laughter from your audience.



I disagree.

Doing all those things can make a _good_ fantasy movie, and that doesn't guarantee it will be entertaining (take *Dragonheart*, for example). Just as a few jumpsuits and a starfield does not make a good sci-fi movie. It takes exotic locales, complex starship battles and cool looking aliens to make a good (typical Star Wars-esque fare) movie. I contend that, on average, sci-fi is more expensive or at the very least equal in cost - especially these days in order to get people to suspend a little disbelief.

Fantasy films, even good ones don't need a huge budget. It helps but you don't absolutely need it to make a good film. Take *Excalibur* and *The Princess Bride* for example. Made on a fairly modest budget and still looked great for the time.

:: edited formatting ::


----------



## Red Baron (Dec 4, 2003)

> That being said, I agree that a DL trilogy (or double-trilogy, to include Legends) would rock. The history is as extensive, if not moreso, than that of Middle Earth. And now we've got the FX technology to do it right.




I'd certainly pay to see a half-decent DL film. But where on earth do people get this notion that Krynn has a history even remotely as deep and rich as Middle-Earth? (I'm really not trying to be a jerk; I simply find the very notion mind-boggling. I mean, have you read _The Silmarillion_ or any of the Unfinished Tales books, etc.?)


----------



## Alzrius (Dec 4, 2003)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I remember when the _Fellowship of the Ring_ came out, to pretty wide popular and critical acclaim, there was talk about how Fantasy was the next big thing in movies and it was going to trigger the production other films. Now, what happened? Have there been any of them? are any of them in the pipeline? It seems to me that sadly there hasn't been an effect at all.




It's not just you - there really hasn't been an effect. The reason is simple: The Academy (that is to say, Hollywood) hates fantasy films. Whether or not the fact that fantasy films are usually unprofitable compared to other types of movies is related to the previous reason or not depends on who you ask.

Fantasy movies just don't draw the respect of other kinds of films - usually contemporary and period pieces. I don't know why, but that's how the "professionals" of Hollywood view them. Personally, I think that's idiotic, but that's just my opinion.

On the second reason, fantasy just doesn't do well, not as much as other types of film. For every big fantasy success, there have been a dozen that failed miserably. Anyone remember a little movie called _Dungeons & Dragons_? What about _Kull_? Or _Warriors of Virtue_? If you do, then you probably wish you didn't. Imagine how the accountants at Hollywood felt.

The Lord of the Rings movies are exceptional, but make no mistake, they are an exception, and not the beginning of a new trend.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 4, 2003)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> Doing all those things can make a _good_ fantasy movie, and that doesn't guarantee it will be entertaining (take *Dragonheart*, for example). Just as a few jumpsuits and a starfield does not make a good sci-fi movie. It takes exotic locales, complex starship battles and cool looking aliens to make a good (typical Star Wars-esque fare) movie. I contend that, on average, sci-fi is more expensive or at the very least equal in cost - especially these days in order to get people to suspend a little disbelief.
> 
> Fantasy films, even good ones don't need a huge budget. It helps but you don't absolutely need it to make a good film. Take *Excalibur* and *The Princess Bride* for example. Made on a fairly modest budget and still looked great for the time.



 I'm not saying that fantasy movie has to be hundreds of millions of dollars. But there's no getting around the fact that the barrier to entry, purely on cost alone, is higher with fantasy than with SF. Sure, there ARE fantasy TV series -- but there's far more SF TV series. Cost, my friend. Spaceship shots are FAR, FAR cheaper to produce than shots with castles, monsters and swordfights. I have friends who can produce convincing spaceships in their spare time. But a dragon? Having people ride up to a castle gate? No, sir.

The notion that _Excalibur_ and _The Princess Bride_ are low budget films only proves the point. Sure, compared to big mainstream films they are, but they're a far cry from, say, _Abraxas: Guardian of the Universe_. And keep in mind they possess marketability beyond their own merits -- King Arthur, who's nicely famous, and William Goldman, who was probably at the peak of his influence when _The Princess Bride_ got made. And even then both films were strapped for cash.

It's harder to make fantasy films than it is to make SF films. It's not impossible, but it's harder. And that means there will be less of them, and they will be more likely to suck.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Dec 4, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's a deal looked on with some dismay by the other studios, but New Line seems confident -- and frankly, I don't blame them. After what PJ accomplished with LotR -- the logistics alone, let alone the final product -- it's clear he can manage the big productions and stay on top of things. He and Fran and Philippa and WETA are a proven team now, and I think the griping of the other studios is just sour grapes.



He's not doing "King Kong" for New Line. I believe it's for Warner Bros.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 4, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> He's not doing "King Kong" for New Line. I believe it's for Warner Bros.




It's Universal, actually.

Here's another place where Weta people will be keeping busy in the next couple of years:

http://dramaticmovies.about.com/cs/upcomingreleases/a/neongenesis.htm


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 4, 2003)

Whoops! Thanks for the correction(s).

Hard to keep these things straight these days.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 4, 2003)

Makes sense.  Universal owns the rights to King Kong today, as any trip to Universal Studios Orlando will show you.  For that matter, showing my ignorance of film history (where's ColonelHardisson when you need him?) isn't Universal just a successor company to the old RKO group that did the 1933 King Kong?

Heck, I'm excited to see a new KK.  The 1933 movie is one of the true classics of the silver screen, IMO.


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 4, 2003)

Damn.

_King Kong_ is definitely in the running for the best film of all time. Not saying it IS the best film of all time, but if you were gathering nominations, it wouldn't be out of place there. What a GREAT GREAT film.

And further evidence to support my theory that in cinema, entertainment value increases with the number of dinosaurs. More dinosaurs equals more entertainment.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 4, 2003)

Not so with American-produced _Godzilla._

BTW, Kong is a (dire?) primate.


----------



## Desdichado (Dec 4, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not so with American-produced _Godzilla._
> 
> BTW, Kong is a (dire?) primate.



Yes, but he lives on an island full of dinosaurs.  His fight with the _T. rex_ is one of the most famous moments on film.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 4, 2003)

That's true.


----------



## Trainz (Dec 4, 2003)

I want to add to all the comments that implied that Dragonlance would be a viable movie.

It has a love triangle (Tanis, Kitiara, Laurana). Just that would make it more palatable to all the non-fanboys who want something they can grasp from a fantasy movie.

Now, if portraying THIS particular love-triangle can be achieved properly, that's in the hands of whoever would be doing the movie. Personnally I have my doubts.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 4, 2003)

Personally, would have loved seeing Kitiara flirting with Tanis and Sturm (especially Sturm, considering what happened before they all got back together at the start of the _Chronicles,_ sans Kitiara).

Otherwise, the love between the chieftain's daughter Goldmoon and Riverwind would be good to emphasized.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 5, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not so with American-produced _Godzilla._
> 
> BTW, Kong is a (dire?) primate.




Untrue!  The American Godzilla wasn't a dinosaur--he was a giant iguana, remember?

The important difference here is that Peter Jackson LOVES King Kong (even more than LotR!) and wants to make the best King Kong movie possible.  Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin were never Godzilla fans to begin with.  They didn't 'get' it.  Peter Jackson does.  That's why Skull Island will be populated by dinosaurs.  Dinosaurs DO make everything better!  It's a FACT.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 5, 2003)

Maybe it's me but I'm tired of dinosaurs.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 5, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Maybe it's me but I'm tired of dinosaurs.




Then Peter Jackson's King Kong will be *perfect* for you because the dinosaurs all get the snot kicked out of them by a giant ape!


----------



## Rackhir (Dec 5, 2003)

Personally, I've always wondered why some people find themselves compelled to do remakes of classic movies? Take King Kong for example, what exactly can Jackson do to improve it? Special effects are the most obvious area, but King Kong isn't considered a classic simply because it has "Great Special Effects", in fact I'm of the opinion that part of it's timeless appeal is the pecular qualities that it's "classic" effects have. 

Acting? Well part of what the makes movies like King Kong a classic IS the performances. The actors in older movies like that up to about the 60's have a, damm this is difficult to put into words. I guess it's like the difference between a child and an adult. Children generally don't mask well, they haven't learned the multiple layers of deception and self protection that adults have. The difference in the performances between more modern movies and older ones like King Kong is like that, there's something less filtered, less self aware I guess.


----------



## Pielorinho (Dec 5, 2003)

Another recommendation for _The Last Unicorn_.  I avoided it for years because I was afraid the unicorn would be purple with a pink, glittery mane and play in fields with butterflies.

There are butterflies, but not like you think.  The unicorn is a mysterious, haunting creature.  Smartass characters abound.  Peter S. Beagle is an inimitable writer.

I've not seen the movie, but can wholeheartedly recommend the book.  Although I'd be even more excited if someone could turn _The Innkeeper's Song _into a movie -- my God, but that would rock.

Daniel


----------



## barsoomcore (Dec 5, 2003)

Remakes of classic films:

Here's a notion: a film becomes a classic as much because of what it DOESN'T show as what it does. That is, a really mind-blowing, classic film that you can watch over and over again is one that leaves out enough so that you have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks. A film that shows everything and leaves nothing for your imagination to do is, well, pornography.

So the great classics get remade because a director comes up with a new "take" on it -- that is they've filled in the blanks in the original with their own ideas and are sufficiently excited about to want to make their own film.

Or else because somebody said, "You know, if we redo King Kong we don't have to hire a screenwriter and we'll rake in the big bucks. Cash money baby."

Either way.

Anyways, I know I would LOVE to make a Godzilla picture. I wouldn't have the marbles to redo _King Kong_, but Godzilla? Heck yeah.

So I get it.

On more dinosaurs = more entertainment -- REG, you're a weirdo. Tired of dinosaurs my Aunt Fanny. Sheesh.

But of all the problems with Devlin & Emmerich's _Godzilla_ -- the beastie herself wasn't one of them. SHE was great -- it was everything else that sucked.

My wife and I have taken a few oaths with regards to our film-making. One is that we will never open a film with a helicopter shot looking straight down at the surface of the ocean, zooming along, slowly tilting up to reveal some sort of cityscape or island or something.

Another is that if we ever make a Godzilla picture, there will be BIG monsters. Not lots of little monsters. And people will get squished. Lots of people.


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 5, 2003)

Speaker said:
			
		

> Something that says more about modern-day publishers then it does about Tolkien .
> 
> All joking aside, I'd count Troy in as a fantasy-type movie to look out for.  Epic in natue, dealing with gods and war - it's a good time to be watching movies.



It has something to say about publishers, as well as readers.  Most people are far weaker readers now than they were 30 years ago, I think.  As a result, publishers need to change the requirements for the kinds of books they publish.  Just take a look at what's being published nowadays.  Anything.  No matter how bad it is.  But now good writers are held to the standards of the bad, because bad writing is apparently easier to read for the common person.

Go figure.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Dec 5, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's not just you - there really hasn't been an effect. The reason is simple: The Academy (that is to say, Hollywood) hates fantasy films. Whether or not the fact that fantasy films are usually unprofitable compared to other types of movies is related to the previous reason or not depends on who you ask.
> 
> Fantasy movies just don't draw the respect of other kinds of films - usually contemporary and period pieces. I don't know why, but that's how the "professionals" of Hollywood view them. Personally, I think that's idiotic, but that's just my opinion.
> 
> On the second reason, fantasy just doesn't do well, not as much as other types of film. For every big fantasy success, there have been a dozen that failed miserably. Anyone remember a little movie called _Dungeons & Dragons_? What about _Kull_? Or _Warriors of Virtue_? If you do, then you probably wish you didn't. Imagine how the accountants at Hollywood felt.




Let's be fair here.  Yes, the Academy hates fantasy films.  Yes, many have sucked.  But so have many more "traditional" movies.  Peter Jackson had potential, a bit budget, and an excellent story.

Mr. Solomon, the fellow who directed the D&D movie.  Well, he created a story from scratch, and he had what directing experience, exactly?  And what budget?  It was a fraction was it not?  I think any movie would have a good chance to flop in a similar situation.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> The Lord of the Rings movies are exceptional, but make no mistake, they are an exception, and not the beginning of a new trend.




I think the point is that it's causing Hollywood to take another look, realize that there is a huge fanbase for some of these fantasy movies, and that if done right, they can be financially successful.  Make a good fantasy, get good results.  Make a bad fantasy, get bad results.  Make good formulaic romantic comedy, get good results.  Make bad formulaic romantic comedy, get good results.

Banshee


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 5, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Anyways, I know I would LOVE to make a Godzilla picture. I wouldn't have the marbles to redo _King Kong_, but Godzilla? Heck yeah.




I'd love to see someone like Shusuke Kaneko do a Godzilla movie if he were given the same kind of budget that Emmerich & Devlin had for the American movie.  Have any of you seen his Gamera movies, especially #3, or his single G-flick, Godzilla-Mothra-King Ghidorah-Giant Monsters All-Out Attack?  What this guy and his sfx team could accomplish with Hollywood money would just be mind-blowing.  After the backlash from the last American version though, I doubt if we'll see another.


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 6, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's not just you - there really hasn't been an effect. The reason is simple: The Academy (that is to say, Hollywood) hates fantasy films. .




I can't find the Internet article, but I read that LOTR was being pushed as an "actor's actor" movie instead of being pushed as an "epic" piece of film making specifically becuase the Academy's "antipathy for fantasy." The author implied that his defintion of fantasy _included_ science fiction. 

(personaly i always point to James Cameraon getting is Oscar for Titantic as compared to Aliens as proof enough of that theory)

Yeah, good luck on serious fantasy being a trend. 

(and what is it with the "establishment?" a director on lot D or a writer in the Midwest whips up a SF/F story and its snubbed, but if they suddenly come from Britian, especially if their work is more than 100 years old, and then it becomes * art.*)


----------



## Von Ether (Dec 6, 2003)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> But now good writers are held to the standards of the bad, because bad writing is apparently easier to read for the common person.




I have to disagree with this. If anything a lot of writers are being held to higher standards, especially for a first novel. Publishers are taking less and less chances and sticking more with proven talent that taking a chance on untried people unless the fellow turns in a piece with flawless grammar.

If you know of a publisher who's standards have slacked, point the way, I feel lazy today.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 6, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Then Peter Jackson's King Kong will be *perfect* for you because the dinosaurs all get the snot kicked out of them by a giant ape!



Yeah, but I've already seen the two past versions. I can't believe I've forgotten that the 1933 film have dinosaurs (the movie that inspired Jackson to be a filmmaker).


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 6, 2003)

Really. What is so great about winning the Oscar? Well, films like _Braveheart_ and actors like Russell Crowe have one but that doesn't necessarily legitimize their works and performances.

I don't know. I guess to me, it's an attempt to be recognized by their own peers and producers and executives in Hollywood, rather than the moviegoer's that pays their bills and give their company a hefty profit for a great entertaining performance well done.

IMHO, Oscar = Hollywood politics.


----------



## Mog Elffoe (Dec 6, 2003)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I've already seen the two past versions.




Okay, but what's that got to do with anything?  I saw Bakshi's LotR and Rankin & Bass' Return of the King, but I'm still going to see the new movies.  Seriously, saying you don't need to see PJ's King Kong just because you've seen the terrible 1976 King Kong already is right along those same lines.  Have some faith in PJ, man.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Dec 6, 2003)

I've never cared what the Academy defines as the "Best Picture" of the year is and even if Return of the King wins, it still won't change my mind. F the Academy, it's just hypacritcal hollywood fluff.

..and I will be attending RotK with much anticipation.


----------



## Ranger REG (Dec 6, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Okay, but what's that got to do with anything?  I saw Bakshi's LotR and Rankin & Bass' Return of the King, but I'm still going to see the new movies.  Seriously, saying you don't need to see PJ's King Kong just because you've seen the terrible 1976 King Kong already is right along those same lines.  Have some faith in PJ, man.



I'm sure PJ is going to do right -- at least one hopes -- with regards to _King Kong._

But for myself personally, I'm not a big a fan of _King Kong_ films as I am with _LOTR._ No disrespect to PJ, who prior to _LOTR_ have done horror films under his belt, and I probably have never seen one of them nor am I forcing myself to.

Heh, what must have been like back in the late 1990's, when the first major announcement of a live-action _LOTR_ film to be directed by a guy who have done horror films. Must have changed a lot of minds by now.


----------



## mmadsen (Dec 6, 2003)

Mog Elffoe said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm super excited about Peter Jackson's NEXT project--the one that he REALLY passionate about--a remake of the the original 1933 King Kong.  Imagine the scenes with the tyrannosaurus rex in Jurassic Park and how awesome it looked--now imagine the t-rex being just as awesome or maybe even moreso, and then getting its ass handed to it by a giant ape!



This reminds me, if you go back and watch that fight scene, Kong uses legit wrestling technique against Rex.


----------



## Welverin (Dec 7, 2003)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Another is that if we ever make a Godzilla picture, there will be BIG monsters. Not lots of little monsters. And people will get squished. Lots of people.




Can I buy tickets now, or do I have to wait?



			
				mmadsen said:
			
		

> This reminds me, if you go back and watch that fight scene, Kong uses legit wrestling technique against Rex.




I wonder where he learned that.


----------

