Lord of the Rings Insults

[*YoungGuyver]

Out of curiosity, was Peter Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings an insult to the UK?  Or was it just an enjoyable movie?  What are your thoughts on this?

[LordSpleach]

???

[*Jess♥]

oh come on man, you could give a bit more context!

 

 

based on a twitter conversation between me and youngguyver here....

 

I tweeted because I felt that Peter Jackson was insulting the UK when he said New Zealand's landscapes were more suitable for LOTR films.

JRR Tolkien wrote the book over many years during the war. at wartime, most of the boys, (I would wager pretty much all) would have had a profound longing for home. The beauty of the English countryside would have been foremost on his mind. not only that, but many of the names referenced in the books are reflective of locations in England.

It has been said among many people, and in some documentary interviews with Tolkien's friends, that the shire is pretty much a pastiche of The English countryside.

Whilst the book may not be explicitly SET in england, the beauty that is described is pretty much an ODE to Tolkiens fondness of his home.

 

The way I see it is, that by saying New Zealand is better than Tolkien's ideal, is to insult Tolkien and to insult England.

 

(I have no issues with playfully insulting the English as I'm Welsh, but I stick up for my neighbours in honesty)

 

Youngguyver responded and seemed to believe I was responding to over-patriotism or blowing it out of proportion.

he seemed to believe that the location of the film was unimportant as we are all denizens of the universe and it is all beautiful as a whole.

I say 'seem to' because I don't want to put words in his mouth.

I personally believe that I simply failed to communicate my views effectively.

[*YoungGuyver]

I also believe that twitter is no place for a debate, as we make post after post with little snippets, very difficult to say anything meaningful.  I was trying to not turn this into an insult to you, so I didn't mention the twitter conversation.  But oh well.

 

For the castle in the second book, PJ was riding around in a helicopter to find a background that matched, then they had to build the castle atop it.  That seems to be dedication to bring Tolkiens writings to life.  I think that's honering Tolkien enough.

 

Money is also an issue.  To get THAT many shots and effects in can be challenging.  PJ might not have mentioned that the UK would be more expensive out of politeness, but when New Zealand asked for more money to film the Hobbit and wouldn't relent, he threatened to take the production to Australia (until they caved).  I believe money is the bigger issue here, which is the case for many movies.  So I don't think it's an insult at all.

[*Jess♥]

wouldn't have taken it as an insult, no worries there.

 

it's interesting you mention that castle. there are actual real castles in England and Wales.

There's a ruin that matches weather-top perfectly about 12 miles from me.

I honestly don't think cost was the major issue, because I believe the plane tickets for all the British and American actors to New Zealand is very expensive.

I can't see where there would be any cost involved in filming in the UK, the locations I could think of would most likely not involve any cost to film... except for accessibility. and then we have to consider that In many cases in the UK, the places would be far more accessible and therefore cost far less.

I'm not a film maker though, I think Super Existence could offer some very interesting information abut this.

[*YoungGuyver]

What about the unions for the production crew?  The UK can charge pretty hefty for overtime.

[*Jess♥]

companies in the UK can choose to employ only non-union workers. that was a clause in the contract for one of my past jobs.

though of course I'm showing my ignorance here. I only live here, I don't work in film production. once again, a question, Super Existence could easily answer for us!  I hope he reads this.

[*Jess♥]

hey, I spoke to Super existence about this. he wrote this to me:-

 

I would say yes, New Zealand and few if any movies made over there so they would be more willing to give concessions and tax breaks than the UK.

Also the wilderness there is so vast and has much less tourism to disturb.

In terms of studio shooting. Definitely because so little would get made over there they'd be falling over themselves to cut a deal whereas Shepperton or Pinewood would demand an upfront fee, dig it or sod off.

The only issue I see is talent over there would be few and far between in terms of tech personel but I remember watching the making of and they sounded either kiwi or aus so can't have been a big problem. Also the matrix movies shot in Australia which probably helped found it's film industry talent pool.

Basically it's always more expensive to shoot in the UK but you tend to get the best tech personel though. We used to have awesome tax breaks here in the 80's but Conservative did away with all that.

 

so, it appears your are right YoungGuyver

[RazorLaser]

"Even the trees walked in those movies"