A Film Critic's Anticipations - Making LOTR into Film is "Impossible or Pointless"?


A pre-production composite of Middle-earth... does it match your expectations?
Philip sent me this little snippet of The Times film critic James Christopher's rather pointed anticipations of New Line Cinema's The Lord of the Rings films.

I'm thinking that he's expecting the worst from these films. Here's what he said:

Here’s your Trivial Pursuit question for the new year. What took three years to plan, 438 days to shoot, employed 20,000 extras, 300 crew, and obliterated a $260 million budget? George W. Bush’s election campaign? Not quite. The answer is even more preposterous. Think Lord of the Rings. Peter Jackson, clearly in a competition to find the most insane director in Hollywood, has done what civilised people would consider either impossible or pointless. He has distilled J. R. R Tolkien’s mammoth Middle-earth epic into three live-action films to be released over the next three Christmases. With an estimated 1,200 special effects shots and a raft of mostly British stars (adopting West Country and Scottish accents), the film — or at least the first instalment, The Fellowship of the Ring — is destined for some sort of greatness.

Apparently Elvish is to be subtitled. It may well be the crowning moment for such stalwarts as Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Ian Holm (Bilbo Baggins), Elijah Wood (Frodo) and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel).

Peter Jackson's task is indeed quite a grand undertaking, but I'd say the signs are more positive than negative. I think that, though not a completely accurate translation from page to screen, the movies will be a great celluloid excursion into one man's vision of Middle-earth--and from what I've seen and heard, I can surely stand his vision.

What do you think? Leave your comments below, or head on over to our Messageboard where you'll find everyone has an opinion! :-)

Add New Comment

Latest Forum Posts

Join the Conversation!