[HN Gopher] Peter Jackson on how Tolkien stopped a Beatles LOTR ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Peter Jackson on how Tolkien stopped a Beatles LOTR film (2021)
        
       Author : Caiero
       Score  : 62 points
       Date   : 2024-05-10 18:18 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
        
       | TillE wrote:
       | A Hard Day's Night is great because it's basically just them
       | goofing around. The rest of the Beatles films have their charms,
       | but they're not actors. I really can't imagine that the idea was
       | to do a straight LOTR adaptation, it must have been some kind of
       | parody. The whole appeal of the Beatles on screen is that they're
       | funny.
        
         | dhosek wrote:
         | No doubt, Help! also fits into the Beatles goofing off schema,
         | and I think a Beatles LotR would be similar, but admit it, it
         | would be fun, like the 1967 version of Casino Royale.
        
         | tetris11 wrote:
         | _Yesterday_ painted them as literal Gods, instead of just
         | decent musicians at the right place at the right time.
         | 
         | To this day I go out of my way to ward people away from that
         | terrible film.
        
           | vips7L wrote:
           | I thought that movie was fun for what it was.
        
           | arnavpraneet wrote:
           | Did we watch the same movie? It was more about their cultural
           | impact than painting them as gods
        
       | dhosek wrote:
       | On a related note, Let It Be was just re-released via Disney+ a
       | week or so ago. It's a bit redundant in the wake of Jackson's Get
       | Back, and it was interesting to see what Lindsay-Hogg did with
       | the material, but I have to say it was generally inferior to Get
       | Back in just about every way.
        
       | lchengify wrote:
       | This only would have worked if it was animated. The 1977 Hobbit
       | film which was produced for NBC [1] was a excellent adaptation,
       | and Yellow Submarine is in the same style. I would argue Yellow
       | Submarine also has many of the same themes, if not more absurdist
       | than fantasy.
       | 
       | Also fun fact I just realized you can stream Yellow Submarine for
       | free on archive.org [2]
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(1977_film)
       | 
       | [2] https://archive.org/details/yellow-submarine-1968_film
        
         | jl6 wrote:
         | How is that film just available for free like that?
        
           | ghaff wrote:
           | Presumably because no one's made them take it down.
        
           | dudinax wrote:
           | Almost any released movie of any note, and a great many of no
           | note are available for free.
        
         | KineticLensman wrote:
         | > The 1977 Hobbit film which was produced for NBC [1] was a
         | excellent adaptation
         | 
         | I've not seen the 1977 Hobbit film, but I note that your
         | reference [1] prominently says: "The Tolkien scholar Douglas A.
         | Anderson called the adaptation "execrable"; the author Baird
         | Searles called it an "abomination" and an attempt that had
         | "failed miserably", regretting the quality of the animation and
         | of the soundtrack, and the omission of key plot points."
        
           | ianbicking wrote:
           | The 1977 Hobbit has its issues, but having watched it
           | recently I feel like it does well with capturing the vibe of
           | the book, especially the first half (it does really fall
           | apart later). I personally find Peter Jackson's version of
           | the Hobbit unwatchable for the same reason... he takes the
           | LOTR vibe and imposes it onto a much more innocent story.
        
           | aiforecastthway wrote:
           | The thing that I like about the Hobbit 77 film is that it
           | realizes the material is a child's fantasy book. It's a
           | breath of fresh air in a our current era -- where VCs seem to
           | understand that any attempt to profit off of the American
           | taxpayer's defense spending requires some Tolkien reference
           | in the company name.
           | 
           | The existence of the '77 animated adaptation is our last
           | reminder that the Generals green-lighting all this spend are
           | literally mid-witted man-children.
        
         | Affric wrote:
         | The Beatles had nothing to do with the production of Yellow
         | Submarine apart from money until the end.
        
       | pityJuke wrote:
       | (2021)
       | 
       | Noticed the Weta Digital mention and was very confused
        
       | karaterobot wrote:
       | > "Ultimately, they couldn't get the rights from Tolkien, because
       | he didn't like the idea of a pop group doing his story. So it got
       | nixed by him. They tried to do it. There's no doubt about it.
       | 
       | I'm a Beatles fan. Tolkien was right to be skeptical, it would
       | have been terrible. No doubt in my mind: campy, perfunctory,
       | self-mocking. Please recall how "nerd" material was treated
       | before the 2000s, if you'd like some precedent for what this
       | would have looked like.
        
         | dudinax wrote:
         | Sure, but it's wrong that he was able to stop it.
         | 
         | We lost what could have been an interesting piece of art.
         | 
         | We should have more adaptations in the world not fewer.
        
           | rcstank wrote:
           | It's his own creation. He had every right to stop it. I don't
           | see how this is wrong at all.
        
             | drob wrote:
             | He owns the IP, but we all lose out from this system.
             | 
             | Art has asymmetric upside - bad art doesn't really harm
             | anyone (usually just gets forgotten) but good art enriches
             | millions of people's lives.
             | 
             | It might have been amazing. It might have been bad-but-
             | interesting. We'll never know!
        
               | kayodelycaon wrote:
               | [delayed]
        
               | mensetmanusman wrote:
               | If it would have been done poorly, no one might have
               | funded Jackson, it's hard to judge in hindsight.
        
         | Drunk_Engineer wrote:
         | They wanted Kubrick to direct, so it could have been a serious
         | effort (Kubrick declined).
        
           | api wrote:
           | I'm not 100% sure Tolkien is right for Kubrick. Maybe but I'd
           | be concerned that he'd make it a little too ponderous and
           | symbolic. He'd nail the spooky dark aura around the ring
           | though. But with the Beatles? Nah no way.
           | 
           | Peter Jackson's adaptation was so authentic it looked at
           | places just like my mental imagery looked as I was reading
           | the book. That's a tough thing to pull off in and of itself.
           | 
           | Spielberg would have made it campy. Lynch would have made it
           | surreal, might have been cool but like his Dune would be a
           | weird cult film take. (I like Lynch's Dune but it's weird.)
           | 
           | For some reason I think Ridley Scott could have done it if he
           | could have gotten his head out of sci fi.
        
             | Keyframe wrote:
             | Ridley Scott for sure could've worked in a collab env, like
             | he did with Spartacus (yeah, he distanced himself from it
             | though). If you're interested in how Ridley Scott version
             | might've looked like, look no further than Legend.
        
               | Drunk_Engineer wrote:
               | Kubrick did Spartacus (I think you meant to say). Kingdom
               | of Heaven might be a better example from Ridley Scott.
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | One of Jackson's smartest move was hiring all the various
             | Tolkien illustrators to work on set design mockups. Really
             | made everything feel right for many people.
        
         | usrusr wrote:
         | I really think you are right, but there's a contrarian part of
         | me now imagining something that is almost identical with that
         | Ballad of Bilbo Baggins video that was allegedly forced on
         | Leonard Nimoy by terrible TV producers, magically turned good
         | through the Beatles touch.
         | 
         | Who knows, as unlikely as it certainly is, perhaps knowledge of
         | the Nimoy TV sequence was what made Tolkien protect The Beatles
         | from embarrassing themselves on middle earth.
        
         | Animats wrote:
         | Yes. The breakthrough was "Batman", 1989, which redefined the
         | fantasy/superhero genre. Before that, fantasy/superhero stuff
         | was silly, unrealistic, or both. "Batman" changed that.
         | 
         | Of course, where that got us was franchises with endless
         | sequels.
        
         | ants_everywhere wrote:
         | I don't know, the Peter Jackson LOTR seems to owe a great deal
         | to the 1973 Ralph Bakshi animated version. Some shots are
         | nearly identical. And 1973 < 2000.
        
           | karaterobot wrote:
           | Well, I disagree with you about the non-camp quality of the
           | 1978 Ralph Bakshi _Lord of the Rings_ , but even if that were
           | true, are you saying that changes the track record of SF and
           | fantasy movies in that period?
        
       | duxup wrote:
       | Wish we knew what that even would have been like. Did they really
       | imagine a 60s/70s stylized LOTR with more modern music?
       | 
       | Had they gotten the rights, would it even have been made?
        
         | jmbwell wrote:
         | This was my question. The article mentioned the project was
         | proposed by a producer. I gather the Beatles at the time were
         | throwing money into all kinds of things that would go nowhere.
         | I could see this as an earnest attempt to make the film, but
         | also as an attempt to lock in access to the funding, rights to
         | future works, who knows what else from a business perspective.
         | Buying things just because it would be cool to have them. Let
         | someone else figure out the details...
        
         | VelesDude wrote:
         | I wonder if they would have gone down the path of many bands in
         | the late 60s and have those long spoken word poetry stretches.
         | That said, thanks to things like that I do love how often you
         | see Michael Moorecocks name popping up.
        
       | cyclecount wrote:
       | Article is from 2021
        
       | s_dev wrote:
       | The real tragedy is we'll never know how Guilermo Del Toro's
       | version of The Hobbit would have turned out. Studio screwed up
       | scheduling and had to get Jackson back in.
        
       | prpl wrote:
       | If it only it was Led Zeppelin instead
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-05-12 23:00 UTC)