7 ms·

‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why It Was One of Hollywood’s Riskiest Projects Ever

64 points by snowytrees 5y ago

abruzzi 5y ago
I was a huge Peter Jackson fan prior, due primarily to Meet the Feebles (still my secret guilty pleasure), and it was just so bizarre to see him move from low budget camp like MTF and Dead Alive, to a $300million dollar massive endeavor. From my very limited experience as a DP on several friends low budget films, the organizational efforts to produce a film the size of LOTR is lightyears beyond films like MTF. Of course later films like The Frighteners or Heavenly Creatures probably helped him build up to being able to manage that.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  A bit like Rian Johnson's career, perhaps, but of a different trajectory.
- evanelias 5y ago
  Agreed, but in some ways it made sense. I remember watching the "making of" special feature on his first film (Bad Taste), which talks about his $20 homemade Steadicam, among other really creative approaches. With a director like that, you have to figure he'll actually use the massive budget in interesting ways, instead of squandering it!
Apocryphon 5y ago
Reminds me of a similar retrospective with the same premise: "Peter Jackson’s LOTR Was an Improbable Miracle, and We’re Lucky to Have It" https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/03/peter-jacksons-lotr-was-an-improbable-miracle-and.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/03/peter-jackson...
oceanghost 5y ago
I just finished watching these movies for the first time literally hours ago. They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. The whole movie was long flowing landscape shots with music swells and battles that were boring. There was no discernible plot, just elves walking and occasionally running or flying in the forest, or a field sometimes. The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. The movie lurched from set piece to set piece and lacked the connective tissue of storytelling. In the modern vernacular, the whole movie is payoffs with no setups. Go ahead, burn my account down :-)
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Here's more fuel for the fire. My personal reduction of Jackson's realization of the novels is a group of hobbits looking at each other with an over-abundance of weariness. I sort of took it as the editor's sympathy with the audience.
- WeAreWhatWeEat 5y ago
  Yeah, imma go ahead and pour some gas and light the torch. Those movies are amazing. And flaws aside, great cinematic storytelling. Seeing them in the theaters as a teen is a memory I’ll hold forever, and watching them every year or two on my tv is always enjoyable. To each their own but man, I love those movies!
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Because you were a teen when you were seduced, I suggest you stay the torch and consider you are reacting just as though someone said something insulting about "yo mama".
- aliswe 5y ago
  Wanna comment on those 17 oscars though?
  - oceanghost 5y ago
    Industry awards only exist to validate the taste of the masses :-)
    - wyattpeak 5y ago
      Unlike big-budget films, which are notoriously aimed only at nitpicking fans.
- sonofhans 5y ago
  I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an opportunity to streeeetch a scene out with fake tension, or to mock one of his characters, or to bolt on some flashy but empty set piece.
Victerius 5y ago
> Sean Connery was also considered for Gandalf Can you imagine how bad that would have been? Sche wishard isch never late, Frodo Bagginsch, nor isch he early. He arrivesch preschischely when he meansch to.
- hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago
  It would make for a great SNL, however.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Or if he had played Morpheus in The Matrix.
FpUser 5y ago
When I watch movies like this I absolutely dig the scenery ang general graphical quality. As for the rest, I just do not pay attention. Same as for many songs. I like the melody, voices, arrangement but I do not really listen to words. The minute I do it'll ruin the piece.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Part of me dies whenever someone implies all music has lyrics or music == song. That you care more for the music than the lyrics melts, imperceptibly, my iceberg heart. The Enya-esque vocal texture, probably meant as a "this is ancient" short-hand, no longer tries my optic nerves, but I am comforted by anyone who responds more to pitch, timbre, and rhythm than the inanity of lyrics.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    >"That you care more for the music than the lyrics melts" It is not that I do not care for lyrics. Problem is that most lyrics in songs is way out of that territory I would consider as decent.
    - nescioquid 5y ago
      Goethe hated people setting his poetry to music, but endorsed the settings made by an obscure composer named Zelter. Musically, these settings aren't considered very interesting, but that's what Goethe preferred: the music shouldn't distract from the poetry. On the other hand, consider the famous Lieder (or most librettos) -- the music is interesting and the text, less so (on its own). Exceptions abound, of course, but I've come to expect an inverse relationship between music and text in this way.
      - FpUser 5y ago
        >"but I've come to expect an inverse relationship between music and text" Exactly my expectation in average.
- 5y ago
flh 5y ago
For me the most memorable parts of these films are the amazing prosthetics and makeup that Weta Workshop created, especially the orcs. They are so well done and give the films such a realistic quality. When I first saw these films in theatre as a teenager I remember being blown away by all of the CGI which was obviously great for its time, but nowadays I appreciate these and the other practical effects so much more. The various videos Adam Savage has made on his Tested channel with Weta Workshop are great as well, I can't recommend them enough to anyone interested in this type of thing.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  The CGI in some places is really not very good at all, in other places its pretty good. The practical effects hold up amazingly well. All the parts of the movie that are non CGI just look amazing, and in some places the used CGI in a small way and that stuffs looks good as well. The difference between LotR and the Hobbit couldn't be bigger. Hobbit is a gigantic trashy CGI shitfest. But what can be said is that the Hobbit was so terrible for so many other reasons that the CGI part didn't really matter.
partomniscient 5y ago
The article glaringly omits the fact that Peter Jackson had to sue New Line to get the proceeds from the film as he was grossy underpaid due to hollywood accounting tricks/fraud that claimed there wasn't that much profit. [1] No doubt variety.com don't want to remind us that their content sources (the studios) can be dodgy as whenever they can get away with it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/the-lawsuit-of-the-rings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/the-lawsui...
- prometheon1 5y ago
  Is there a word for the phenomenon "company does something morally questionable to increase (short-term) profits"? I feel like it happens all the time but society just kind of complains and then forgets about it. If we have a word for it we can call it out and keep track of it better.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Is there a word for the phenomenon "company does something morally questionable to increase (short-term) profits"? Capitalism.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      Specifically: maximizing shareholder value
- tzs 5y ago
  > The article glaringly omits the fact that Peter Jackson had to sue New Line to get the proceeds from the film [...] No doubt variety.com don't want to remind us that their content sources (the studios) can be dodgy as whenever they can get away with it The article is "‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why Peter Jackson’s Trilogy Was One of Hollywood’s Riskiest Projects Ever", not "Lord of the Rings: The Complete History of The Movie". How the money was distributed afterwards would be out of place. The Jackson lawsuit was mentioned in this Variety article [1] on another legal case involving LotR. There the Jackson suit against New Line was on topic, and so it gets mentioned. [1] https://variety.com/2017/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-lawsuit-tolkien-warner-bros-1202486336/ https://variety.com/2017/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-lawsuit...
eslaught 5y ago
I read the article and still don't know the answer to the titular question. Why exactly was LOTR risky? Just because it was high budget and Jackson wasn't proven yet?

64 points by snowytrees 5y ago

I was a huge Peter Jackson fan prior, due primarily to Meet the Feebles (still my secret guilty pleasure), and it was just so bizarre to see him move from low budget camp like MTF and Dead Alive, to a $300million dollar massive endeavor. From my very limited experience as a DP on several friends low budget films, the organizational efforts to produce a film the size of LOTR is lightyears beyond films like MTF. Of course later films like The Frighteners or Heavenly Creatures probably helped him build up to being able to manage that.

Apocryphon 5y ago
A bit like Rian Johnson's career, perhaps, but of a different trajectory.
evanelias 5y ago
Agreed, but in some ways it made sense. I remember watching the "making of" special feature on his first film (Bad Taste), which talks about his $20 homemade Steadicam, among other really creative approaches. With a director like that, you have to figure he'll actually use the massive budget in interesting ways, instead of squandering it!

Apocryphon 5y ago

Reminds me of a similar retrospective with the same premise: "Peter Jackson’s LOTR Was an Improbable Miracle, and We’re Lucky to Have It" https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/03/peter-jacksons-lotr-was-an-improbable-miracle-and.html https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/03/peter-jackson...

oceanghost 5y ago

I just finished watching these movies for the first time literally hours ago. They are beautiful visually but fail on every level of storytelling. The whole movie was long flowing landscape shots with music swells and battles that were boring. There was no discernible plot, just elves walking and occasionally running or flying in the forest, or a field sometimes. The world failed to establish any rules or explain itself adequately. The movie lurched from set piece to set piece and lacked the connective tissue of storytelling. In the modern vernacular, the whole movie is payoffs with no setups. Go ahead, burn my account down :-)

nescioquid 5y ago
Here's more fuel for the fire. My personal reduction of Jackson's realization of the novels is a group of hobbits looking at each other with an over-abundance of weariness. I sort of took it as the editor's sympathy with the audience.
WeAreWhatWeEat 5y ago
Yeah, imma go ahead and pour some gas and light the torch. Those movies are amazing. And flaws aside, great cinematic storytelling. Seeing them in the theaters as a teen is a memory I’ll hold forever, and watching them every year or two on my tv is always enjoyable. To each their own but man, I love those movies!
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Because you were a teen when you were seduced, I suggest you stay the torch and consider you are reacting just as though someone said something insulting about "yo mama".
aliswe 5y ago
Wanna comment on those 17 oscars though?
- oceanghost 5y ago
  Industry awards only exist to validate the taste of the masses :-)
  - wyattpeak 5y ago
    Unlike big-budget films, which are notoriously aimed only at nitpicking fans.
sonofhans 5y ago
I agree with you. I think Peter Jackson is a poor director, and that those movies start mediocre and get markedly worse as they go. Jackson never passes up an opportunity to streeeetch a scene out with fake tension, or to mock one of his characters, or to bolt on some flashy but empty set piece.

Victerius 5y ago

> Sean Connery was also considered for Gandalf Can you imagine how bad that would have been? Sche wishard isch never late, Frodo Bagginsch, nor isch he early. He arrivesch preschischely when he meansch to.

hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago
It would make for a great SNL, however.
Apocryphon 5y ago
Or if he had played Morpheus in The Matrix.

FpUser 5y ago

When I watch movies like this I absolutely dig the scenery ang general graphical quality. As for the rest, I just do not pay attention. Same as for many songs. I like the melody, voices, arrangement but I do not really listen to words. The minute I do it'll ruin the piece.

nescioquid 5y ago
Part of me dies whenever someone implies all music has lyrics or music == song. That you care more for the music than the lyrics melts, imperceptibly, my iceberg heart. The Enya-esque vocal texture, probably meant as a "this is ancient" short-hand, no longer tries my optic nerves, but I am comforted by anyone who responds more to pitch, timbre, and rhythm than the inanity of lyrics.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"That you care more for the music than the lyrics melts" It is not that I do not care for lyrics. Problem is that most lyrics in songs is way out of that territory I would consider as decent.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Goethe hated people setting his poetry to music, but endorsed the settings made by an obscure composer named Zelter. Musically, these settings aren't considered very interesting, but that's what Goethe preferred: the music shouldn't distract from the poetry. On the other hand, consider the famous Lieder (or most librettos) -- the music is interesting and the text, less so (on its own). Exceptions abound, of course, but I've come to expect an inverse relationship between music and text in this way.
    - FpUser 5y ago
      >"but I've come to expect an inverse relationship between music and text" Exactly my expectation in average.
5y ago

flh 5y ago

For me the most memorable parts of these films are the amazing prosthetics and makeup that Weta Workshop created, especially the orcs. They are so well done and give the films such a realistic quality. When I first saw these films in theatre as a teenager I remember being blown away by all of the CGI which was obviously great for its time, but nowadays I appreciate these and the other practical effects so much more. The various videos Adam Savage has made on his Tested channel with Weta Workshop are great as well, I can't recommend them enough to anyone interested in this type of thing.

panick21_ 5y ago
The CGI in some places is really not very good at all, in other places its pretty good. The practical effects hold up amazingly well. All the parts of the movie that are non CGI just look amazing, and in some places the used CGI in a small way and that stuffs looks good as well. The difference between LotR and the Hobbit couldn't be bigger. Hobbit is a gigantic trashy CGI shitfest. But what can be said is that the Hobbit was so terrible for so many other reasons that the CGI part didn't really matter.

partomniscient 5y ago

The article glaringly omits the fact that Peter Jackson had to sue New Line to get the proceeds from the film as he was grossy underpaid due to hollywood accounting tricks/fraud that claimed there wasn't that much profit. [1] No doubt variety.com don't want to remind us that their content sources (the studios) can be dodgy as whenever they can get away with it. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/the-lawsuit-of-the-rings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/business/media/the-lawsui...

prometheon1 5y ago
Is there a word for the phenomenon "company does something morally questionable to increase (short-term) profits"? I feel like it happens all the time but society just kind of complains and then forgets about it. If we have a word for it we can call it out and keep track of it better.
- krapp 5y ago
  >Is there a word for the phenomenon "company does something morally questionable to increase (short-term) profits"? Capitalism.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Specifically: maximizing shareholder value
tzs 5y ago
> The article glaringly omits the fact that Peter Jackson had to sue New Line to get the proceeds from the film [...] No doubt variety.com don't want to remind us that their content sources (the studios) can be dodgy as whenever they can get away with it The article is "‘Lord of the Rings’ at 20: Why Peter Jackson’s Trilogy Was One of Hollywood’s Riskiest Projects Ever", not "Lord of the Rings: The Complete History of The Movie". How the money was distributed afterwards would be out of place. The Jackson lawsuit was mentioned in this Variety article [1] on another legal case involving LotR. There the Jackson suit against New Line was on topic, and so it gets mentioned. [1] https://variety.com/2017/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-lawsuit-tolkien-warner-bros-1202486336/ https://variety.com/2017/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-lawsuit...

eslaught 5y ago

I read the article and still don't know the answer to the titular question. Why exactly was LOTR risky? Just because it was high budget and Jackson wasn't proven yet?