There and back again?

One evening in December 2001, I, all of 14, sat down in a huge theater in San Francisco with my dad, my godfather and his boyfriend. Soon, I was fighting back tears so the guys wouldn't think I was soft. But boy, something was happening. A new world was opening up in front of me, welling up with a magical feeling so intense that the tears were winning.

That was the night I saw JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Or was it Peter Jackson's?

Either way, the moment I got back home in Berlin, I looked for those tattered secondhand copies of the trilogy I knew were stashed in one of the bookshelves and started reading. At the same time, I started searching the net for others who were just as elflock-stricken by Middle-earth. I was becoming a true fanatic. Sure enough, I soon came across the Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza and, over the course of two years, I RPGed my way up from a New Soul to the Queen and Co-Ruler of Khazad-dûm, the kingdom of the Dwarves of Middle-earth.

But as "RL" slowly began to catch up with me over the years, I started spending more time studying for my exams, worrying about my future in general and, while I still like LotR, I don't spend an average of seven hours a day hovering over the books, films and websites. Now, though, with the recent clashes over The Hobbit, lively discussions have sprung up anew between friends, family and me. Will PJ direct The Hobbit? Should he? How good a job did he do on the trilogy? What would a Middle-earth without Pete and Co look like? And what's up with that other mysterious LotR prequel, anyway?

The last question is easily answered: Dunno. Peter Jackson stated in his letter to TheOneRing.net that the prequel was to cover "the events leading up to those depicted in LOTR." Many fans interpret that to mean the events between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. To my knowledge, the only published material that covers this span is one page of the timeline in the "Appendices" of the trilogy. The events described there lack the plot-line the movie would need and, additionally, are very brief. You can't make a feature-length film out of "Birth of Frodo," Arwen and Aragorn's first flirts and the bad guys preparing their evil schemes for the LotR trilogy. So unless there are tons of unpublished notes by Tolkien on this subject, this prequel would end up being an extensive fan fiction. Hm. Other interpretations for instance involve The Silmarillion, a sort of history book on the beginnings of Middle-earth, and a two-part Hobbit. But what it basically boils down to is a simple "no clue."

So on to topics that require less speculation.

A fact: The Tolkien exhibit in Frankfurt last week displayed a life-sized cardboard standup of, among others, girl-crush "Orli's" Legolas, amidst pictures of Tolkien's childhood. The resulting observation: Peter Jackson is starting to match Tolkien's status as a divine being. The integrity of Middle-earth is directly linked not to JRR, but to PJ. I can't say whether fans do or don't realize that this Middle-earth is different from JRR's - it's a Middle-earth that features a Narsil-wielding Arwen, a not-so-noble Faramir, a Sam who gives up on Frodo, Elves at Helm's Deep...

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to nitpick, as many others will to various degrees of obsession. More on that later. The point is simply that Lord of the Rings purists, strangely enough, nowadays are not necessarily JRR Tolkien purists. The movies bred a new branch of Peter Jackson purists who would rather turn into the possessed living dead like Jackson's Théoden than pay to see a Middle-earth movie that's not directed by PJ. Well, maybe they'd watch it once, just to be able to bash it.

Either way, this is one reason New Line would be making a mistake by giving this movie to someone else; they'd lose a pretty big number of moviegoers and potential buyers of Smaug action figures, Hobbit calendars, Orcrist replicas and The Official Book of New Line Cinema's The Hobbit.

Besides, as Elijah Wood put it, a ME project by a director other than Jackson "won't look or feel the same." Much as with Star Wars and Harry Potter (though the latter improved as the project progressed), movies that actually belong together wouldn't fit together. And I think that would be a shame.

Now whether or not Pete actually did a god-like perfect job realizing the books as a movie remains a matter of opinion. The spectrum goes from haters to lovers and I'll take this opportunity to put in my two cents. Peter Jackson, with the help from talents such as Howard Shore, most of the actors and the Weta artists, to name just a few, created an absolutely tangible fantastic world. From the choice of locations to the hairs in the Orcs' nostrils, these people worked magic: The pictures, sounds and emotions of the movies allow you to believe in Middle-earth.

Taking the screenplays into consideration as well, these movies certainly worked. Generally, they told the story Tolkien envisioned and created a huge fan community along with an extremely profitable franchise. This is where the big "however" comes in. The movies, as they are currently on my DVD shelf are, in my opinion, not necessarily the only versions that might work and not necessarily the best ones.

My point of criticism, as you can tell, is the screenplays and more specifically, their diversions from the books. A page for page reproduction would be silly of course, for all the obvious reasons. I support omissions - yes, including Tom Bombadil - and many of the changes that were made simply because Tolkien, as an inexperienced fiction writer, did not adhere to a typical plot structure. The movies had to appeal to general audiences, not only to standing LotR experts.

Some decisions, however, simply aren't justified, no matter what the reasons given by the screenplay writers Jackson, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens were, if they even tried to explain them at all. For instance, the inserted scene in which Faramir takes the Ringbearer to Osgiliath. "By rights, we shouldn't even be here," laments the ever truthful Sam. Ha, ha. Oh, the bloody screaming irony. Not to mention the fact that this happens right after Frodo offers the Ring to a Nazgûl. Jackson might as well have reincarnated Sauron into his old armor and had a standoff between him and Frodo at the Cracks of Doom.

Be that as it may, had another director taken on the epic challenge, it may very well have been such a flop we wouldn't even bother discussing it. So let us praise what we love, constructively criticize what we don't and think about the current problem. What will happen if another director does take on the Hobbit challenge?

Could, say, Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, who's being considered, match Jackson's heart-felt devotion to the project? Both men started their careers with horror flicks, though Jackson displayed more love for bizarro creatures with his sex-craving killer puppet machines in Meet the Feebles. Raimi's The Evil Dead is considered more of a classic than Jackson's Bad Taste, the title of which speaks for itself, but Jackson's fantasy-horror geekiness is actually a plus point for him in this case.

However, what if Raimi could team with the ME-factory Jackson painstakingly built up over the years? Raimi's directing skills would only matter if he could work with the rest of the original crew, meaning the people from Weta, the composer, the editors, et al and last but not least, the actors. But will Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis and Hugo Weaving agree to go back to Middle-earth without PJ? (Alas, Ian Holm cannot be considered for the half a century younger Bilbo anyway.)

Assuming the original crew comes with the project, Raimi seems to be in the lead. It's interesting to note that Raimi's Spider-Man ranks 7th in the US top box office list, way ahead of Jackson's King Kong at 51st. Though the box office certainly isn't always the best measure, these rankings seem about right to me. But whichever of the two might be a "better" director, all things speak for Peter Jackson. He, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are Tolkien fans, even if they made some questionable decisions. They have the experience with Middle-earth and they have the enthusiasm. Most likely, only they can create a harmonious Middle-earth Quintology. And then, of course, there are the PJ purists, who are threatening a boycott. Considering all this, New Line simply has to resolve the money issues and hand the staff back to Jackson, as MGM also stated in the New York Times article.

It's bound to happen pretty soon, too, since New Line's rights to The Hobbit run out in 2009. Of course, it'll still be a while until The Hobbit, and even longer until the Mystery Prequel hit the screen. And Jackson is sure to make the headlines again. So there's plenty of time and material for more passionate discussions. And when the time comes, I'll take a day off from my studies to sit square and center as the curtains open for The Hobbit premiere.

Until then, namárië...

Posted by dwhudson at December 1, 2006 4:47 AM