Sign In

Peter Jackson evidently IS returning for The Hobbit...sort of... — Page 4

Author
Time
I would never go so far as to say that films ruin books since they are still two separate entities. I do see your point, though. Films are unable to perfectly capture the essence of a book, and in some ways the reverse is true. I always recommend reading the book first if the book is the original source because, like you said, the film will influence your perception of the book if you see it first.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Well, by ruining the books I meant that it limits your imagination as well as give away the story. I did not mean that they are so bad that they bring down the quality of the books.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Of course not, but when the movie is as good as Lord of the Rings, they can be a really excellent companion to the book. And an easy way to share the story with non-readers. Look how many more people have been exposed to LOTR because of the movie that never would have otherwise.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
It actually may not be a bad idea to get someone other than Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit. The reason I say this is because the book is quite different stylistically from the LOTR books, and so a change of visual style may not be so bad.

One stylistic difference that comes to mind is the trolls. The ones that Bilbo meets in the forest are very different from the LOTR movie trolls.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
SOME THINGS JUST DDON'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.


Oh please. They said very clearly in the commentary on ROTK that they essentially changed things to cope with people's attention spans. They said that if the movies had all been released at once, there would have been far fewer changes. So they really changed things because they didn't think people would remember what had happened in the previous movie. Most of the people I talked to either rented FOTR before seeing TTT (and the same for ROTK) or rewatched their DVD the night of the movie.

I am seriously getting sick of these director's and producer's saying they're changing things essentially because "people are stupid and can't remember anything". The people who are going to the theater to see these movies are not stupid and can very easily remember what happened in the last one.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
How do you explain all those ppl watching FOTR right before seeing TTT then? To refresh their memory maybe? I get what you are saying but your comments actually back up the Director statements you seem upset with.

Author
Time
A direct page to screen adaptation of The LOTR trilogy would suck.

On Thursday I'm going to see the LOTR stage play. Not really sure what to expect.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Nobody would really want to see a direct word for word adaption. When you make a film based on a book that large, you obviously have to cut out a lot of details. But a lot of the changes in the LOTR movies goes way beyond removing bits here and there.

"How do you explain all those ppl watching FOTR right before seeing TTT then? To refresh their memory maybe? I get what you are saying but your comments actually back up the Director statements you seem upset with."

Of course. A year is a long time to remember every detail. But it is sad to sacrifice something because you don't think people will remember. Ultimately the movies will most commonly be watched like a single really long movie over the span of a few days. I don't know too many people who pick of TT, watch it and call it good. They are meant to be watched together. It is three movies based on a single book after all. Lj is not contradicting himself in saying that it is stupid to for the director to dumb things down because people wont remember what happened last time. He was saying that people are not so dumb they need their movies filmed with their ignorance in mind. People can remember, and if not they'll be smart enough to rent the movie before going to see the second part. Make a film as intelligent as you can, and if some people can't cope with it tough. The new Bourne movie, I forget the name of it, but I went to see it with my wife. I had seen the second one a long time ago, but man was I lost. I had no idea what the hell was going on it that movie because I could not remember the first two (not to mention I kept falling asleep). So, should the director have dumbed it down and loaded it full of rehash? Definately not! It was nobodies fault but my own that I had no idea what was going on. Should've rented the other two before going to see this (only I could not bear the thought of having to sit through them both for a second time).

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Johnny Ringo
How do you explain all those ppl watching FOTR right before seeing TTT then? To refresh their memory maybe? I get what you are saying but your comments actually back up the Director statements you seem upset with.


My point is, people took initiative to make sure they hadn't forgotten. A LOT of people did that. They didn't need the director to cut things out of TTT and ROTK in order to "help them remember".

Go watch the commentary for FOTR. Then watch the one for TTT and ROTK. They took A LOT more liberties with TTT and ROTK. In FOTR PJ plainly states "We were going to change this, but we decided not to afterall". Can you imagine the backlash they would've received if they had changed to much? After FOTR was a success, they were pretty much free to change things as they pleased. Hence, you get Aragorn "dying" in the Warg attack and Faramir becoming a completely different character.

The only thing, in my mind, that they really needed to cut was the Tom Bombadil stuff from FOTR. That part was a good chunk of the book, but it was essentially just there to show how large the LOTR world was. Changing Faramir and Aragorn's character was completely unnecessary. And with the amount of "endings" that ROTK has, having the Hobbits fight one last battle in the Shire wouldn't have been that big of a problem. I know a couple of people that said "end already!" at the end of ROTK because of all the things that happen at the end of that movie. But there's nothing you can do about someone like that (he's more like a film critic than your average movie goer). Just make the best movie you can without sacrificing the content in order to "dumb it down".
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Looks like it might be Del Toro:

Link
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
That would be extremely... weird. Directors tend to bring a lot of their style with them and Del Toro's just doesn't seem Middle-Earthish.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Del Toro doesn't seem Middle Earth-ish? So you're saying that the pre-LOTR Peter Jackson DID seem Middle Earth-ish, based solely on his previous work?

Honestly, I'd trust the guy behind "Pan's Labyrinth" with Middle Earth more so than I'd trust the guy behind "Bad Taste", "Braindead" and "The Frighteners".

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Ha! Good point.
I had never actually heard of Jackson or known of any of his work before Lord of the Rings, but I must admit (and this is from a guy who often criticises the films and Jackson's take on them) that he and his crew did a good job on capturing the right feeling of ME.

I guess there are some director's that get pigeon-holed into their unique style of directing. Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, and Jean-Pierre Jeunet are pretty good examples of this. When you see a film buy one of these guys and not know it is directed by them, but yet know their other stuff, you could almost look at it and guess that they were the director. This would be harder to do with something directed by Spielberg, who still has his own unique style but it is more mainstream and not as immediately recongnizable. Del Toro strikes me as more of a Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, Jean-Pierre Jeunet sort of director. I have only seem a couple of his films, but they have a kind of unique Del Toro-esque thing going on in them. I would hate to see somebody do to The Hobbit what Jean Pierre did to Alien 4, he added his uniqie style to it, and I like his style, but it just worked better for films like "Delicatessen" and "La Cite des Enfants Perdus" than it did for Alien. I like Del Toro's style, but I don't want The Hobbit to come out looking like "El Espinazo del Diablo", "El Laberinto del Fauno", or "Hellboy".

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Well, Del Toro is also good at fairy tale - like storytelling, and since The Hobbit is essentially a fairy tale aimed at children, I think he'd do a great job.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
Looks like it might be Del Toro:

Link


Good Lord, let it be so.

If Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth are any indication, he would do a fantastic job! He would be capable of capturing both the Hobbit's lighthearted nature and its dark themes perfectly. Heck, his great use of special effects alone should get him this job.

"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

Author
Time
Del Toro under Jackson's guidance could work nicely. Far better than Raimi.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Yeah, as much as I like Raimi, I am not so sure I would want to see him do the Hobbit. Though I am sure the Bruce Campbell cameo would be pretty amusing, and Lucy Lawless would make a great... huh, I can't think of a single female character in that book. It has been a while since I have read it, but I would almost hazard to say that there are not any.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
After I'm done fanboygasming all over myself, I'd like to say that I don't think that there's much that could possible thrill me more than the prospect of del Toro directing and Jackson producing (granted, I've never had sex, but...). That being said, given del Toro's frequent passes on most mainstream projects, and that he and Jackson might butt heads, chances look slim. Still, I'd love to see it happen, but it's just a rumor at this juncture......

And everyone who loves del Toro and liked Pan's Labyrinth, for the love of god, rent The Devil's Backbone!

Good Lord, let it be so.

If Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth are any indication, he would do a fantastic job! He would be capable of capturing both the Hobbit's lighthearted nature and its dark themes perfectly. Heck, his great use of special effects alone should get him this job.

His skill is not in question. It's his will that I wonder about.

Changing Faramir and Aragorn's character was completely unnecessary.


I'm not saying that it was a stroke of genius to have Aragorn disappear by any means, but it didn't change his character. Faramir, however...

“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

Author
Time
I'd say Raimi's style meshes with Jacksons much more. In fact, I would say they have practically identical styles. But Del Toro will at least give the film a more interesting direction. I'm sure it will be different from Jacksons trilogy, but thats not necessarily a bad thing.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
http://movies.ign.com/articles/849/849112p1.html

Guillermo del Toro is almost official! Now, if you will excuse me, I must go change my pants.

“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