What if - John Boorman made The Lord of the Rings in 1970???

Once upon a 1970s time there was a movie...

...that never happened. That film was The Lord of the Rings. Thanks to Peter Jackson and the entire nation of New Zealand, the world was able to finally experience the incredible epic that J.R.R. Tolkien wrote many years ago. It is hard to believe that at a time before Jackson first started the cameras rolling, there had been other attempts to bring this book to life on the big screen. Granted, there was Ralph Bakshi's animated epic but that was just two of the three books condensed into one movie. But before that, director John Boorman was commissioned to turn The Lord of the Rings into one singular movie. Yup, just one movie. One.

One Film To Rule Them All

Director John Boorman, who is most famously known as the director of Deliverance and Excalibur (though for a select few he is known as the director of Zardoz), was commissioned by United Artists in 1970 to adapt The Lord of the Rings after just buying the film rights from Tolkien. At the time, Boorman wanted to make a King Arthur film (which would eventually happen 10 years later) but was pushed to making the Fantasy Epic while the iron was still hot. Along with his fellow screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, the two then set out to adapt the book that was divided into three books into one film. Through various interviews with Boorman and Pallenberg, the two of them had indeed read the entire trilogy several times and had every single plot point down in their head. However, because the initiative was to make one movie and not a series of films, some things had to be taken out. By some I mean a lot.

The Fellowship of the Ring, the first book in the trilogy, gets the privilege of keeping most of its narrative intact. This amounts to roughly 1 hour and 50 minutes to maybe even 2 hours. The second book in the trilogy, The Two Towers, gets the greatest trimming by only including three key points: Frodo and Sam meet Gollum; Gandalf is alive; and the nation of Rohan gets established. The portion dealing with The Ents is gone. So yeah, no more giant talking trees. The exodus of Rohan to Helms Deep doesn't happen, nor does the infamous battle of Helms Deep. Nope. Again, it only kept Gollum's introduction; Gandalf's resurrection; and the establishment of the Rohirim. That amounts to probably 20-25 minutes. And then you have the final book in the trilogy, Return of the King, which condenses the entire book into the last 30-35 minutes of the film sans the infamous "Scouring of the Shire" chapter that was also never in Jackson's films. That brings about the grand total of hours to 3. Boorman's epic adaptation would've been a 3 hour Lord of the Rings film. Though one would think that if they were going to make the film for a 3 hour running time why not at least dedicate one hour per book instead of roughly 2 hours for the first book, roughly 25 minutes for the second book, and roughly 45 minutes for the third book. 

It is definitely a film for the 70s

Having went to various sites that have summarized what Boorman and Pallenberg wrote, it is astonishing that they were able to condense the last two books so much. However what is even more astonishing is how much drugs, sex, and violence was going to be in the film. Yeah. That's right. Drugs and Sex. There was violence in the Jackson films, but there was no emphasis on drugs or sex. And by sex I mean like literally getting it on and female nudity whenever it can be shown.

If you have seen Boorman's Excalibur then you have a clear idea of just exactly how this film would've looked like. His take on the King Arthur did not shy away from the brutality of violence nor did it shy away from the desire and lust for sex. That style can be found in his script. Galadriel is no longer the image of the Virgin Mary but rather Venus rising out of her shell. A naked Elf that has sex with Frodo before she lets him gaze into the Mirror. Then there is also Eowyn, the warrior woman of Rohan and now daughter of the king instead of being his niece like in the books. After Eowyn kills the Witch King she enters a state of sickness from her wounds and is stripped naked on the battlefield because the warriors needed to find out where she got hurt. Then of course comes Aragorn who heals her by...getting on top of her and mimicking sex while reciting some incantation. On the bright side for Eowyn, she does wind up marrying Aragorn in this version rather than her book and Jackon counterpart where she gets freindzoned. 

And then there's the shrooms. Mushrooms get the hobbits high. They tend to get high a lot in this movie. And of course like I said, things get a little bit more violent.

In other words this is not the epic gritty yet hopeful fantasy film that people know now. This film would've been more akin to Dungeons and Dragons with the tone and style of Game of Thrones but without the high quality costuming. Now that sounds interesting as hell, and had it came out at the time it probably would've been lauded and criticized. However with Jackson's films, this take on Lord of the Rings just seems like a travesty against the text. But so were a lot of adaptations during that time.

I would've seen this movie

Like I said, it is not until recently that the notion that it has to be exactly like the book or closer to the book became the norm to adaptations. So had this movie existed, and given my love for fantasy, I would've definitely seen this film. Just imagine that. A world with a singular The Lord of the Rings film that is Rated R and would set a precedent for Peter Jackson's adaptations. Or maybe, just maybe, if it had happen... Peter Jackson may not have made the films at all. That is a scary thought. But then again we can only imagine what film history would've been like. 

If you wish to know more about this, just google: John Boorman Lord of the Rings.

You won't believe who he was going to cast.

Why Dwayne Johnson would make a great Superman

Yes, I'm well aware that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has been attached to DC Comics for a very long time. At one point he was ready to play Lobo in Guy Ritchie's take on the character. That would've been a perfect fit for him as well as put him in an awesome Sci-Fi movie. Then there was the news about him playing Black Adam some years back for a Shazam movie. Whether it was proven true or not doesn't matter now since apparently Warner Bros. announced they are definitely making a Shazam movie sometime after Zack Snyder's Justice League gets released. Whether or not he will be playing Black Adam or perhaps the titular Shazam (aka Captain Marvel) remains to be seen as well. All that is known is that he is playing a huge part in the DC Cinematic line. A part that he claims has never been seen before and is definitely on par and/or stronger than Superman. That's a big claim. However, in a weird way, that quote got me thinking. What if Dwayne Johnson played Superman? What would that be like? Would it work? Is that a bad idea? Well... in my strange little world where any movie is possible... yes.

I know what the immediate problem would be if someone were to have cast him in Man of Steel or hell any Superman movie. "HE'S NOT WHITE!" That is what the general consensus would be. And to be fair, that is true. He isn't. He's half black and half Samoan. Though at first glance his ethnicity is pretty hard to pin down, one can assume he's one or the other. Skin tone wise, he would automatically not be considered a contender for Superman. Me personally, I don't see that as quite fair. Granted, the character's known ethnicity is that of a white man, but let's be clear about something. Superman aka Kal-El is an ALIEN from Krypton. An ALIEN. In other words, Superman could've looked like anything but he just happens to look like a white man and get picked up by an elderly white couple. So in a sense, anyone can play a man from another planet who gets adopted by earthly parents at a young age. And what are the chances that all the Aliens on the planet of Krypton are white? Oh yeah, and by the way, look at Marvel's Nick Fury in the films. He's not suppose to be black. That's an alternate version of Fury that they used in the films. So, that sort of takes care of that one obstacle that would get in the way.

Johnson has shown that he can play ruthless and calculating. Just look at his earliest and current roles. The Scorpion King and Agent Hobbs come to mind of what this guy can do if you ask him to be a warrior. Then there's also the middle part of his career when he was doing more family friendly films. During that run he's shown a softer side and very capable of being charming. I mean come on that is a million watt smile he's got. The type of charm and charisma Superman would need. Plus, he's one of the few wrestlers turned actors who actually developed a good screen presence. Is he the greatest actor in the world? Not really. Can he act? Yes he can. The guy is capable of showing different sides and does have a diverse range. Don't believe me? He played a gay man trying to become an actor in some John Travolta film. I don't remember the name of the film but I remember him because he was awesome in it. So clearly this guy can switch back and forth between being the big blue boy scout and the angry god that Superman is known to be.

And if we got to talk about muscle mass...you're kidding right? Henry Cavill is the first actor to play Superman who actually has the body to match the name. But if we're talking about a muscle mass that matches what he is usually drawn as in the comics then it would take a lot longer for Cavill to reach that point. That's where you enter The Rock! The guy is huge. If you don't believe me something is wrong with your eyes. He was huge during his wrestling years but in his film Hercules he has gotten ridiculously huge. The body definitely matches the mythical figure and that's what Superman is: a modern myth. He has always been drawn to be larger than life to the point where when you look at him you automatically know he's stronger than you. I think many people get that feeling if they were looking back at Johnson. He's got the superhero body type down for a long time and even more so now.  It would match up with Superman's muscle mass perfectly. Especially if it resembles Jim Lee's work on Superman. And don't talk about he doesn't have the hair! The guy can grow that! He doesn't have electric blue eyes? Contact lenses!

However, I know no matter what I say here it will never happen. I know I should say "never say never." But with Cavill as Superman now (and I have no problem with that) and Johnson being lined up to play some currently unidentified DC hero/villain, the chances of this happening in the future are nonexistent. It would be nice for a change to see someone of a different Ethnicity take on the big blue boy scout. Hell, I'd love to cast my half white and half vietnamese friend as Superman. But I know that's not the kind of world we live in. Perhaps someday it would be fine. And perhaps somewhere in an alternate universe, Dwayne Johnson is playing Superman. It's just not in this universe.

But really this would be cool to watch if Dwayne Johnson was playing him. Or even Zod.

Let's make "DONKEY KONG" a movie

Whoever made this image, you're awesome!

For those of you who don't know, its also about Mario

Donkey Kong is a legendary video game. When young gamers hear Donkey Kong they will immediate conjure up images of a gorilla with a necktie, but only real gamers would know that it is the game that introduces the world to Mario. Well...sort of. He wasn't called Mario originally but instead referred to as "Jumpman" as a way to compete with Pacman. But for all intents and purposes this is the game that introduces the world to these two iconic characters.

Didn't they make a movie already?

The shot answer to this is yes and no. Yes, Buena Vista Pictures made a film adaptation of Super Mario Bros. back in 1993 starring Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo as the video game icons Mario and Luigi. The general consensus of that film among the video gaming community is... "act like it doesn't exist." Which is a shame because Bob Hoskins is a brilliant actor...but then again brilliant actors occasionally do bad films that they probably had no idea would be bad.

So, am I asking for a remake? Not really. Because then the title would be "Let's remake Super Mario Bros." Where I'm going with this is making a straight forward film adaptation of the original video game.

So how exactly would one were to do that? Well, the idea I have in mind, is probably not the one people want:

Dark and Gritty - The way no one wants to see....unless

Just hear me out. The term dark and gritty usually gets associated with "The Dark Knight." It is a term used to describe something that is real and grounded. Well to me Dark and Gritty means something else. When I think of Dark and Gritty, The Dark Knight does come to mind but so does a film that people seem to forget is Dark and Gritty: The X-Men Film Franchise. People don't seem to realize how dark the film is in terms of subject matter, but it may also have to do with the touches of lightness coming from the need to relieve the serious tension. This is a style that could pose a threat to a movie going experience. Do it right (X-men, The Dark Knight, Rise of the Planet of the Apes) and you got a great movie. Do it wrong (Cowboys and Aliens) and that's when debates will start triggering of whether it was the right decision. And believe it or not, the storyline of the original Donkey Kong game can be interpreted as pretty dark.

The Story

The storyline of the original Donkey Kong game is about a pet gorilla that has suffered abuse and mistreatment by his owner for several years. Fed up with the abuse, the gorilla kidnaps his owner's girlfriend and holds her hostage in the owner's factory. Now, obviously the gorilla is the titular Donkey Kong. But who is this abusive owner? Jumpman, or better known today as MARIO! 

That's right, the hero of the video game is the cause for the trouble of the video game. While this plot was really created just to give it an edge against other games that came out at the time, if one were actually to delve into the deeper meanings then you'd realize that you're playing the villain. Our knowledge of Mario is that he's the hero. This is mainly attributed to the later video games that would paint him as the true hero of the Mushroom Kingdom. This can play to people's expectations of Mario in the film.

It could be a small scale rendition of the storyline told in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But have the James Franco character be a dick and change the setting to the fantasy world of the Mushroom Kingdom then it makes total sense why someone would have a gorilla as a pet. Or how about making the gorillas Mario's workforce for the factory that he runs? He keeps it out of the public eye that he is abusing these animals and instead makes it looks like he takes good care of them. Hell, he could be secretly the villain of the story. Donkey Kong can be his main gorilla who takes the most abuse due protecting the other gorillas from Mario. It would play into Donkey Kong's plan in Kidnapping Mario's girlfriend, Pauline. Yes, Pauline, not Princess Peach. The story would then borrow that element of King Kong with the seemingly villainous ape kidnapping the beautiful woman. Of course this is where that revelation would dawn her about the truth of Mario.

The film can end with Mario being exposed and loses his business, with Donkey Kong and his gorilla comrades being released into Donkey Kong Country by Pauline. As for Mario, he is forced to work with his younger brother Luigi as a plumber.

See what I did there? I left Mario in a bad place while also setting him up for a potential sequel that would serve as his redemption story to being a true hero. Clever huh? Well, maybe anyone can come up with that. But doesn't that sound cool?

The Downsides to making it that way

• People might be turned off by making it kind of serious and a little bit dark with the animal abuse subject matter that some would claim wasn't there
• The title Donkey Kong would be misleading as it is also a Mario movie so a studio might call it Mario Vs Donkey Kong or Mario Origins or something lame to get the public more interested and less confused when they see Mario
• Most people don't know this storyline so it would turn people off to have Mario painted in such a negative light
• Video game adaptations have a history of being bad so that could detract from the number of people who would see it

The Plus sides of making it that way

• It would make the subject matter stronger and the drama really intense
• It would have great action scenes that would all take place in one location, kind of like The Raid but in a factory
• The first big screen adaptation of Donkey Kong and the second stab at making a good Mario Flick
• It would add more depth to characters who are pretty straight forward in all their other games
• It could potentially open the doors to a Nintendo Cinematic Universe (I did say it ends with Donkey Kong Country being introduced and Mario becoming a Plumber)

Final words

Yes, that is the movie I'd want to see. And it may sound crazy to some. But again, any movie idea can be good if done right. What type of Mario adaptation would you want? Something like Marvel that is filled with comedy and moments of character development? Or my approach where it looks dark but it can also be light.

Why Luke Evans would've made a great Batman and Perseus

I remember it very clearly. It was April 2, 2010, I was out with some old high school friends and some new college friends watching the Clash of the Titans remake. Having seen the original Clash of the Titans when I was much younger, within the first few minutes of the remake I was already making judgements about the movie. Then came the scene on Olympus where we see Liam Neeson as Zeus in all his shiny armor glory along with Ralph Fiennes introduction as the scheming Hades. The rest of the Olympian Pantheon was present in their shiny armor, but other than Zeus and Hades there were only two other gods that had lines: Poseidon played by Danny Huston and Apollo played by... who is that?

Funny how Apollo only had two lines yet I remembered him after I saw the movie. I didn't completely understand why, but something about the actor who played Apollo stood out to me. Perhaps because it was such as small role and that he was one of the few gods to actually have lines? That's what I told myself after leaving the theater. It wouldn't be until I bought the DVD (out of pure Greek Mythology fan bias than for being an actual good movie) and watched that deleted scenes that consisted MOSTLY of this actor having Apollo originally playing a larger part in the movie that I realized something. This guy who goes by the name of Luke Evans should've, in my opinion, been the guy who played Perseus.

It really had to do with a deleted scene dealing with Apollo stating to his half brother Perseus (the hero of the movie played by Sam Worthington) that "(they) are brothers." It really was that moment where I thought what if their roles were switched. I have nothing against Sam Worthington. He's a decent actor, though he has yet to wow me. However there was something about this Luke Evans guy who seemed to have more of a draw and a presence. He definitely fit will playing the god Apollo, had his role not been reduced to just two lines instead of an entire sub plot that was deleted. However seeing him just reminded me immediately of the original Clash of the Titans star, Harry Hamlin. They both had presence and a voice that says leading man and legendary hero. I kept thinking about it a little bit more and thought casting Luke Evans as Perseus would've been perfect. Hypothetically had he been cast as Perseus instead of Sam Worthington, would that have made the movie better? Probably not. However it would've made this version of Perseus more compelling. Sam is capable of playing a compelling character if the character is written to be compelling. The Perseus in the remake was not written as a compelling character but rather as a cookie cut out cliche hero character. It takes a compelling actor to make a cliche something watchable, and that was something that Luke Evans had.

Luke would've made a very interesting Perseus. He has looks, the voice, and if he had been casted hopefully the hair would still be in tact because he has that too. Had I been involved with the film as a casting director or as the director of the film in general he would've been my first and only choice. However there are factors I have to put into consideration. The first being no one in America knows who he is. I didn't know who he is. So, the casting of Sam Worthington was definitely meant to draw in the Avatar audience because everyone in the world has seen him in that. However, he did get put into the film so he had to have auditioned for more than one part. If I was the director or casting director of the project I would've taken a gamble with him as Perseus because he just fits the bill perfectly. Although if I was the director of the Clash of the Titans remake, the story would've been completely different but that's not really what this post is about. It's simply stating this idea that's been going around in my mind for three years now. I would've liked the 2010 Clash of the Titans more had Luke Evans been given the role instead of Sam.

Since then I've been following this guy's career to see if anything big is going to happen to this guy. There are cases where you see an actor do a small part in a film who is more compelling than anyone else in the film that you just know that person is going to become someone. And good thing he did. Immortals, Fast & Furious 6, and now The Hobbit trilogy. I'm really glad that right now he has some name recognition because I believe he is one of the most compelling actors in the business. Not the greatest, I'm not saying he's Oscar worthy, but he is definitely someone who you won't have a problem watching or even criticize his acting. That's why this next thought came to my mind recently.

The casting of Ben Affleck as Batman is said and done. I have no problem with it other than the fact that it means I won't see a film directed by the Affleck for a while. But when there was still speculation about who should be the next Batman, I had two choices in mind: Josh Brolin and yep you guessed it Luke Evans. The thought of him playing Batman would've done wonders for propelling his career even further. If The Hobbit movies don't, then him getting casted as Batman surely would.

It would've been a nice nod to Immortals by having Luke (who played Zeus) and Henry Cavill (the new Superman and the lead of Immortals) to be seen side by side one another. Luke definitely has the charm and the voice to pull off an older Batman. He is older than Cavill by about five years so it does fit the bill of an Older Batman as a nemesis and potential mentor figure for Batman. However as the fates may have it, Ben Affleck has the role which means I'll never see Luke Evans as Batman. Then again I'll never see him as the lead in a Clash of the Titans remake. He's got a nice career ahead of him after The Hobbit, and I look forward to seeing what else he does in the future.