How we don't want the movie to be

[Darth Tater]

Did anyone see Leprechauns? That's how I don't want it to be! The music was horrible, the camera shots were really confusing, the special effects were pointless, the story was non existant, etc etc etc. What do you think would be the worst fantasy movie for it to be like?

[bmilder]

Hmm, well I never saw Leprechauns. Come to think of it, I haven't really seen any fantasy films, so this one will be a surprise :P. As to what a fantasy film is of course, not the plot... :D

[Darth Tater]

It was a two part made for tv a few weeks ago, It's sad Hallmark had anything to do with it, very bad.

[Hernalt]

doh.

[Quaff Down Gin]

...like TPM! Egaads! I think I might end it all!

[Pippin Skywalker]

I saw PART of Leprauchons....dumb story..but I love fantasy.....:p Hey..Star Wars Hater...come and get it you....raaaaa!!!! :)

[IronParrot]

I know what I don't want it to be like - if any of you have ever had the misfortune of seing the horrid Prince Valiant, you know what I mean. Or, if you're focusing on book adaptations... can someone say Starship Troopers?

[juntel]

Starship Troopers? Doogie Howser with telepathic abilities?

[IronParrot]

No... I was referring to how Paul Verhoven misinterpreted the book to the point where he took out all the substance Robert Heinlein put into it, and turned it into pure action, stunts and FX. While I'd love to see a ton of action, stunts and FX in LOTR, I hope Peter Jackson maintains his focus.

[Michael Martinez]

Verhoeven has gotten such a raw deal over that movie. He fought to preserve a lot of the character of Heinlein's book but was overruled by other people. The book is not easily adaptable to film, but he still managed to cover the major points presented in Heinlein's book: why the veterans seized control of Earth's government, why the boot camp was so hard on its recruits, how Rico rose through the ranks (but of course it left out the OCS sequence completely). Those are just a few examples. The essence of the adventure came from Heinlein's story, but there was not enough movie to tell the full story. STARSHIP TROOPERS was at one time one of my favorite novels. I have enjoyed watching the film adaptation, and own the videotape. I was appalled to see the way some online fans ripped Verhoeven over the coals without even having watched the movie -- I have come to believe that many people have been influenced by that negative reaction, even if they have seen the movie. That's not to say I think everyone who dislikes the film was led to dislike it by other people's attitudes -- rather, I just think all the negative hype and hysteria helped to ruin a lot of people's enjoyment of what is a very good adventure film. Jackson is up against the same wall, and rest assured he WILL be hung for not complying with the book. But he CAN'T. There is no way he can tell the full story in these three movies. I prefer not to be part of the lynch mob, nor even to stand idly by while he is hung. His story, like Verhoeven's, will be an adaptation, not a direct translation to film. Or think of these films as interpretations of the themes and characters.

[juntel]

I did like that movie, but didn't read the novel... I liked the cynism, especially coming through the "commercials" inside the movie (a Verhoven trait it seems), and expected some paroxysm where it would have been revealed the "alien threat" was more of a plan from the "military democracy" (militocratia??) to consolidate their hold on power... but I guess that wasn't in the novel, and it's the only regret I have...

[Darth Tater]

I too enjoyed the movie, but never read the book so I really can't voice my opinion there.

I know these movies will not be a direct addaption, but I am hoping for something that is not just FX. A good story is very important, considering it's being taken from the best. Tolkien's action, though unmached by that of any other author, pails compaired to his characters. Just think Denethor, wow. I really hope they do this well.

[IronParrot]

Don't get me wrong, people. I enjoyed Starship Troopers a lot AS A FILM. But it was horrible as a NOVEL ADAPTATION - not so much because it didn't preserve every bit of the novel, but because it didn't preserve the FOCUS.

[Hernalt]

I agree with Parrot. SST seemed rather disconcerted, just from a technical standpoint. Although some of that stands as comic-horror surrealism, there was even yet a definate agenda in the use of internet/tv commercials.

What was the point of them? Recall the Gulf War. On a nightly basis, the expoits and triumphs of the UN forces were given a seasonal NFL treatment, with play-by-play action, instant replay, fans, experts, armchair veterans, popcorn, get-yer-pizza!, make me sick with how gleefully we kick the ass of an offender when we get a chance. The commentary in SST was not on media in particular, but in the sensationalism DEMANDED by the populus - and that's how we get Doogie Howser, previously a sworn bearer of the Hippocratic Oath, now ON LIVE TV gunning down a bug alien with barely so much as a technical explanation of its reflex to brain ratios and how many bullets it required.

Running Man was the same way. You recall the end where Arnold finally survived the course and made it into the audience hall, where the announcer was trying to keep things calm? Arnold said, "Get these people out of here," meaning, he didn't want any of them to come to harm. And yet who the *Hell demanded the form of entertainment that was the Running Man?? Not the announcer - he was just making a living. Had Arnold been excercising blind justice, then not only the announcer, but EVERY ONE of the audience would have bought it.

That defense of Starship Troopers was to highlight the artistic lisence of the director to bring more to the movie than the book may have supplied. Certain portions of the book might be sacrificed in the process, yet we still have the book - it doesn't go anywhere. This extension of director's vantage can also be seen in the modern takes on King Arthur: "Excalibur" from 1981 was from Arthur's perspective, "Merlin" (Sam Niel) was from Merlin's, and "First Knight" was from I dare say from Gweniviere's. They had varied narrative stress on loyalty, dark magic, change, timelessness and (newborn) Christianity. I know - No, duh! But check them out and compare.

Back to Starship Troopers: So where does justification for director's artistic license hale from? The overwhelming violence in SST was disturbing, graphic, everything that no children should see. Notice the (younger) youth of the new ship crew at the end of the movie - you know, the unresolved and timeless ""unending""?. It was evidently a clear statement that humanity had been forced to drop back and punt from the yardline of the next younger tier of their children. Now it wasn't 16, 17 and 18 year olds being enlisted, it was 13, 14 and 15s.
Race-survivalism is as old as time, and youth have always carried the weight of adult political folly. As they were losing and retreating, Japan and Germany kept digging deeper into their reserves of humanity, throwing younger and younger men/boys against their Allied opponent. Now they were paying for their folly in the largest denomination known to man - the generation. Was the human/bug war a result of political folly? Or is war between intelligent cultures as inevitable as the dominance routines of a brood of puppies?

Anyway - Here's to hoping that LOTR is value-packed with additional ideologic-license, perhaps to the tune of what Tolkien may have offered had he lived in this 21st century.