Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

493Re: LOTR, a whine for Matt

Expand Messages
  • WendellWag@xxx.xxx
    Jul 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/26/99 6:04:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      sschaper@... writes:

      > New Zealand? It has to be filmed in England! At least until they reach
      > Rivendell!

      Actually, it makes sense to film in New Zealand. I remember back in the
      mid-'70's, before the Bakshi film of _The Lord of the Rings_ came out,
      discussions among Tolkien fans where it was proposed that a live film should
      be filmed in New Zealand. If it were to be filmed in Europe or North
      America, nearly any place that it could be filmed would be familiar territory
      to many people. As they watched the film, they would be thinking, "That's
      not Middle Earth. That's where I went on vacation last year." That sort of
      thing would be much less common if the film were to be shot in New Zealand.

      Furthermore, England is especially bad. Remember, England is crowded. While
      you can still film a Western in the U.S. because there are still enough
      remote places that can pass as nineteenth century locations, you can't make a
      movie supposedly set in medieval England if you film it in England (unless
      you're confined to small sets). Did you see the film _Dragonheart_ a couple
      of years ago? (A bad movie overall, but nice settings.) It did look like
      medieval England, but only because it was filmed in Slovakia.

      Wendell Wagner
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic