- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of... — Page 3
- Time
- Post link
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
1. if it's a split-up "Hobbit" film, it will lose momentum and drama. It just doesn't work...
2. If it's a story cobbled up using Tolkien's "Appendixes" and "Unfinished Tales", it would be
even worse. There is no real linear, character-driven story. It would just be a muddled mess
of a documentary-style thing. Tolkien never intended these notes to become a narrative.
What are we going to watch for 2 hours? It sounds ridiculous.
If they had to make another movie, I'd propose a short film (30 mintes approx.) shown after the "Hobbit" film
about The Necromancer.
- Time
- Post link
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Yes, but bear in mind that many of us do like his direction and do want him there
. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, mind, just bear in mind that Jackson has a large fanbase who would be interested in him taking on The Hobbit. “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O
Yes, but bear in mind that many of us do like his direction and do want him there. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, mind, just bear in mind that Jackson has a large fanbase who would be interested in him taking on The Hobbit.
Yes, but bear in mind that many of us do like his direction and do want him there
. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, mind, just bear in mind that Jackson has a large fanbase who would be interested in him taking on The Hobbit. Are you making bear puns? Beorn is an awesome character, so I wouldn't blame you.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Maybe not, but I think the movie would end up worse if someone else was directing. We'd end up with PJ's style for LOTR and then a different style for the Hobbit, which might or might not work. I think that's really the only reason a lot of people want PJ directing, so all the movies have the same style.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
of course their is elrond, a couple brief mentions of gondolin, the elven king of mirkwood not named until the lotr as thranduil.
the necromancer (sauron of course) who they did not know was growing again in power in his fortress of dol guldor in mirkwood before the rebuilding of the dark tower in mordor.
but the elves are entirely too childish and unlike the elves of lotr are very merry folk who laugh and joke and are jolly.
plus their are the authorial interuptions in the book the asides to readers which ultimately came out of tolkien's reading to his children.
later he would call talking down to children a mistake and though it is their in the early drafts of lotr the finished product became much more terrible and adult like.
according to the new history of the hobbit books tolkien had the intent to almost rewrite the entire hobbit and not just the riddles in the dark chapter V, he did some preliminary revised notes but never carries them through. he was also going to rewrite the silmarillion to fit the lord of the rings, he wanted a consistency between all the works parts as he saw all three works as part of the whole.
he never did finish the silmarillion or write the hobbit more in line with the lotr.
and even though they were not published chronologically it was his hope that the silmarillion be read first, the the hobbit and finally the lord of the rings, this is also christopher tolkien's approach to the material.
my favorite parts of the hobbit are the references to norse myth, the philological stuff like the riddles in the dark obviously taken from old english book of riddles. as well as the references to beowulf and the hrolf saga like beorn the were bear or skin changer.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Maybe not, but I think the movie would end up worse if someone else was directing. We'd end up with PJ's style for LOTR and then a different style for the Hobbit, which might or might not work. I think that's really the only reason a lot of people want PJ directing, so all the movies have the same style.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Maybe not, but I think the movie would end up worse if someone else was directing. We'd end up with PJ's style for LOTR and then a different style for the Hobbit, which might or might not work. I think that's really the only reason a lot of people want PJ directing, so all the movies have the same style.
IT'S NOT JUST THE STYLE. PETER, FRAN, AND PHILIPPA UNDERSTAND THE BOOKS. THEY LOVE THEM. THAT'S WHAT REALLY MATTERS.
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Maybe not, but I think the movie would end up worse if someone else was directing. We'd end up with PJ's style for LOTR and then a different style for the Hobbit, which might or might not work. I think that's really the only reason a lot of people want PJ directing, so all the movies have the same style.
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Peter Jackson not being in the director's chair would be a very good thing. The Hobbit is my favorite book of all time and I don't want him ruining it.
Maybe not, but I think the movie would end up worse if someone else was directing. We'd end up with PJ's style for LOTR and then a different style for the Hobbit, which might or might not work. I think that's really the only reason a lot of people want PJ directing, so all the movies have the same style.
True. I understand Tiptup's feeling about PJ, but they could wind up picking someone far worse.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
- Time
- Post link
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: motti_soL
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN.
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN.
Originally posted by: motti_soL
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN IF WE DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN.
You speak the truth.
Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
- Time
- Post link
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
IT'S NOT JUST THE STYLE. PETER, FRAN, AND PHILIPPA UNDERSTAND THE BOOKS. THEY LOVE THEM. THAT'S WHAT REALLY MATTERS.
That is a very interesting comment. You have read the books, right Dayv?
Originally posted by: motti_soL
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
IT'S NOT JUST THE STYLE. PETER, FRAN, AND PHILIPPA UNDERSTAND THE BOOKS. THEY LOVE THEM. THAT'S WHAT REALLY MATTERS.
That is a very interesting comment. You have read the books, right Dayv?
Originally posted by: motti_soL
If you ask me, Peter Jackson did an insanely awesome job with Fellowship of the Ring. The Two Towers and The Return of the King was lacking... a lot in a lot of areas (not going to get into this, this has been covered left and right on the internet).
The Hobbit shouldn't be made into a movie. It's too boring.
My opinion.
I think The Hobbit could be a great film. Yes, the book is very slow moving, but most people consider LOTR very slow moving and boring and yet look how successful those movies turned out. Even many people I know who proclaimed Fellowship of the Ring as their all time favorite movie the second they walked out of the cinema, ran out and bought the books only to read a short ways into FotR before admitting that it was far too boring for them to finish.
I personally think The Hobbit would be much more Fellowship of the Ring like in many ways if it were made into a film. The second two films are much more action packed, and those are the parts I find hard to sit through. I can only watch so many battles for so long. The Hobbit has action, but it has a lot of other stuff as well, I think it would transfer to screen wonderfully. But not in two movies. A single three hour or less film is plenty to tell the tale that is to be told, dragging it out for marketing's sake would be unfortunate.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
I do think they did a good job translating the books to film. Film and print are very different animals, and yes, they took some liberties, but the only really "wrong" thing IMO was when the Elves showed up at Helms' Deep. Well, that and how much screen time was devoted to Helms' Deep.
But on the whole I think LOTR was very faithful to the source material, especially when until that point, adaptations reflected virtually none of the source material (Clancy novels being the worst-case offenders).
FOTR, Harry Potter and Spider-Man was a trifecta spread over six months time that got Hollywood back to respecting the source. For that I remain grateful.
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
FOTR, Harry Potter and Spider-Man was a trifecta spread over six months time that got Hollywood back to respecting the source. For that I remain grateful.
FOTR, Harry Potter and Spider-Man was a trifecta spread over six months time that got Hollywood back to respecting the source. For that I remain grateful.
Spider-Man? I guess it resembled the old comics as far as how Peter becomes Spider-Man for the most part, but it really wasn't that close to the source material in most aspects. I think really only the basic origin remained true to the original.
Lord of the Rings was impressively close to the source matterial, especially considering how rare it is to find a film adaption that remains true to its source material. But there are a few very blatant liberties taken for no appearent reason.
I was also pretty disappointed that the heroic return of the hobbits to the Shire was completely removed. I know it is necessary to leave out things, and plenty of things were left out, but the return of the hobbits had always been a very meaningful part to me. It really showed how the hobbits had all been greatly changed by their adventure. I know the ending of the film adaption of ROTK went on and on, but I felt there were a lot of parts in ROTK that drug on way too long, and a brief bit of the return, even if severly altered might have been a favorable change of pace for the end.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Spider-Man? I guess it resembled the old comics as far as how Peter becomes Spider-Man for the most part, but it really wasn't that close to the source material in most aspects. I think really only the basic origin remained true to the original.
Lord of the Rings was impressively close to the source matterial, especially considering how rare it is to find a film adaption that remains true to its source material. But there are a few very blatant liberties taken for no appearent reason.
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
FOTR, Harry Potter and Spider-Man was a trifecta spread over six months time that got Hollywood back to respecting the source. For that I remain grateful.
FOTR, Harry Potter and Spider-Man was a trifecta spread over six months time that got Hollywood back to respecting the source. For that I remain grateful.
Spider-Man? I guess it resembled the old comics as far as how Peter becomes Spider-Man for the most part, but it really wasn't that close to the source material in most aspects. I think really only the basic origin remained true to the original.
Lord of the Rings was impressively close to the source matterial, especially considering how rare it is to find a film adaption that remains true to its source material. But there are a few very blatant liberties taken for no appearent reason.
SOME THINGS JUST DON'T WORK ON FILM. OTHER THINGS DO. PETER AND FRAN CHANGED THESE THINGS FOR A REASON THOUGH IT PAINED THEM TO DO SO. THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS TELL PEOPLE TO WATCH THE MOVIE BEFORE READING THE BOOKS.
"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide
- Time
- Post link
I am a strong believer that films ruin books, but books don't ruin films. There are some exceptions to this, especially if the movie is better than the book on which it is based. Planet of the Apes is one of those I would highly recommend seeing the movie first. With things like Fight Club it does not matter because the book and the movie are very nearly identical, no mater which you see/read first, you will feel like you have read/seen the other before.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape