SMF

After years of drama and negotiations, Peter Jackson will finally get to make "The Hobbit." It looks like there will be two movies. The first will most likely be an adaptation of the book and the second a bridge movie about what goes on between the Hobbit and LOTR.

I'm looking forward to it, since what Jackson did with the trilogy of LOTR was simply brilliant....

Executive Producer Peter Jackson. As far as I know, that's a title that they use to put a personal thumbs up on a film to put people in the seats. Who is going to direct the films?

I like the idea for "The Hobbit" but the sequel has me a bit concerned...

timc wrote:Executive Producer Peter Jackson. As far as I know, that's a title that they use to put a personal thumbs up on a film to put people in the seats. Who is going to direct the films?

I'm not at all worried. He was not on set of the LOTR films a lot of the time, but gave very detailed instructions on what was to be done and had people that were capable of doing it. Whether he directs or it's someone else who does so, he will have a heavy, involved hand in the entire process. I look forward to it tremendously.

sparkchaser wrote:I like the idea for "The Hobbit" but the sequel has me a bit concerned...

Tolkien had plenty of material written describing what happened between the Hobbit and LOTR, it was just not in the form of an proper book. Notes, sidebars, and snippets. His son, Christopher, has managed to make a career of pulling these things together into entire books. I'm sure this information can all be compiled into a very good movie that bridges things together smoothly without taking too much creative license.

I have been a fan since Mrs. Crippen introduced me to "The Hobbit" when I was trying to decide on a good book to order in 6th grade English class from that Tab book flyer where you could order paperback books at school....The teacher would take up your money, order the books, and pass them out when they came in. I remember how excited I got when I went to her class and saw that big brown box of books on her desk waiting to be handed out.....I still have that copy......Thank you Mrs. Crippen, wherever you are, for introducing me to Tolkien all those years ago......

Peter Jackson completely horked up Lord of the Rings. Sorry, but Return of the King officially did it for me and I don't really trust Jackson to "get" Tolkien any more...

Yeah, Bakshi was better!

I'll be happy to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. After Bad Taste, Dead Alive, Meet the Feebles, Forgotten Silver, The Frighteners, Heavenly Creatures and most of the LOTR he seems to have a fair chance of doing a decent job. Everyone can have an off day, though King Kong was a pretty expensive off day in my book.

Chris

Its one thing to have an off day; quite another to completely mess up the denouement of the whole trilogy! How can one exclude--or worse-- pose as an alternate, avoided ending-- the Scouring Of The Shire chapter??

It is this chapter, more than any other chapter, that raised the LOTR story from fantasy to fable/mythology... Which was his purpose is writing the trilogy.

Bah, Hollywood. Won't spare the millions in costumes, CGI, etc., to get the other aspects of the story right, but has no problem fudging around with the whole story's raison d'etre.

I'm sure P. Jackson will do a great job with The Hobbit. I'm looking forward to it.

. . . I actually watched most of the LOTR trilogy this past weekend. Good stuff. . .

Books > movies of same. 99% of the time.

I have no expectation that Jackson will do any better with The Hobbitt than he did with LOTR. Great special effects and a story does not equal remaining true to the original.

I'll probably just stick with my imagination's version of The Hobbitt.

Hoos wrote:Books > movies of same. 99% of the time.

I have no expectation that Jackson will do any better with The Hobbitt than he did with LOTR. Great special effects and a story does not equal remaining true to the original.

I'll probably just stick with my imagination's version of The Hobbitt.

Jackson's LOTR trilogy is probably one of the best book to movie adaptations. Sure they left out the Razing of the Shire and Tom Bombadil and moved events around a bit but all things considered, his films were epic. The only other movie that I would say was more faithful to a book would be The Hunt for Red October.


I think The Children of Húrin would make a fine movie as well.

sparkchaser wrote:I think The Children of Húrin would make a fine movie as well.

Maybe in the end they can live Happily Ever After

I will concede to movies 1 and 2 falling into the potentially epic category. I really liked them. I can completely understand leaving T. Bombadil out of the movie.

In composition class they tell you to not be afraid to use the whitest white and the blackest black in your pictures to give them the most depth and contrast possible. I feel like Jackson needlessly bottomed out at a medium grey by omitting the darkest aspects of the final books.

Hunt For Red October was a great movie. For me, Baldwin will always be Jack Ryan. That fake Christopher Columbus quote at the end kinda torqued me off though.

I learned a long time ago to try to NOT compare films to the books on which they are based. If I do, then I almost always am disappointed. It is much easier to enjoy both a book and a film by treating them as completely separate entities.

I thought Peter Jackson did about as good as anyone could possibly do in adapting LOTR to the screen. I look forward to seeing what he can do with The Hobbit.

Scrapyard Ape wrote:I learned a long time ago to try to NOT compare films to the books on which they are based. If I do, then I almost always am disappointed. It is much easier to enjoy both a book and a film by treating them as completely separate entities.

I can appreciate artistic license. I can appreciate that they are different media. But I feel that when a book is made into a movie, there is a line that should not be crossed. LOTR deserved better than a Hollywood ending.

I've been on both sides of this argument. Notably on the issue of the new Batman movie (crap) vanquishing the original Burton Batman with conflicting plot lines. Unforgivable. Yet it is argued the new Batman is more faithful to the storyline of the comics. For me, it doesn't matter because Burton created a movie that amplified the themes of the original Batman, and brought to life a rich, dark, and macabre element to the story that apparently only Tim Burton can replicate. Guess they learned their lesson there. Slash and burn, get out the cookie-cutter.

Sorry to hijack, I'll do my best to refrain from posting additional diversions in this thread

bleedingface wrote:Notably on the issue of the new Batman movie (crap) vanquishing the original Burton Batman with conflicting plot lines. Unforgivable.

There is only one Batman. Adam West.

bleedingface wrote:Its one thing to have an off day; quite another to completely mess up the denouement of the whole trilogy! How can one exclude--or worse-- pose as an alternate, avoided ending-- the Scouring Of The Shire chapter??

Hear, hear!! The movies will be forever flawed for leaving out The Scouring.

(I also hated Aragorn's long stringy hair, and lack of decent shave)

-Scott

kd7kip wrote:

bleedingface wrote:Its one thing to have an off day; quite another to completely mess up the denouement of the whole trilogy! How can one exclude--or worse-- pose as an alternate, avoided ending-- the Scouring Of The Shire chapter??

Hear, hear!! The movies will be forever flawed for leaving out The Scouring.

(I also hated Aragorn's long stringy hair, and lack of decent shave)

-Scott

Agreed. I admit to enjoying the LOTR trilogy - but the essence of the story is Sam's constant yearning for home and things as they were. Leaving out The Scouring was a huge disappointment for me.