Guarneri Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I always liked the Hobbit more than LOTR. LOTR was really good, but the Hobbit pulled me in from the start and I still have great memories of it. I'd actually rather Peter Jackson didn't direct it, I thought he completely butchered LOTR. Most of the great stuff from LOTR was the artwork and design, which Jackson had nothing to do with. I wonder what Guillermo Del Toro could do with it... I think he did a wonderful job with LoTR, because he made it so that the average joe could enjoy it as well as the fanbase. If he had kept strictly to the book sure you'd have the hardcore fans going, "woohoo! it's exact!" but you'd also have everyone else in the theatre going, "Holy fuck, it's the travel station but with hair midgets. Woopity freaking doo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Hot Pie Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 BTW, this is a good thread to keep in mind whenever you find yourself asking, "why did they make that movie instead of making..." (seems to come up a lot whenever Neil Gaiman properties are discussed)? The business of making a movie is extremely complicated. Even more so when adapting a novel. The rights are often tied up by a company or an individual. And even then, putting the right team together to produce/develop the piece is often a matter of hit and miss/trial and error. It's not like any particular script can move into production at any given moment. So the answer to the above question is usually, "because that's the deal that could get made at this particular time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Ex Machina Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 New Line may be learning the hard way that you shouldn't just dump your creative team. Great integrity by Sam Raimi to pass on the project. If Jackson doesn't do the film, I'm certain that the difference will be very noticeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KazigluBey Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 If he had kept strictly to the book sure you'd have the hardcore fans going, "woohoo! it's exact!" I didn't dislike it because he changed it from the novels, I realize that it was an adaptation. I didn't like it because of miscasting (Liv Tyler? Bleh!!), turning Legolas into Spiderman, turning Gimli into a lame running-joke, the fake english accents were atrocious, the hobbits grated on my nerves, Sam and Frodo's homo-erotic love affair was nauseating, etc. Basically, I was wincing way too much for it to be a good movie. It had it's moments, but the repeated head slappings left my forehead red, and I don't want to watch it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurytus Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I didn't dislike it because he changed it from the novels, I realize that it was an adaptation. I didn't like it because of miscasting (Liv Tyler? Bleh!!), Miscasting? The only problem with Arwen is that she was in it too much. It would be hard to turn Tolkien's Arwen into anything much. turning Legolas into Spiderman, That one I will grant you. Hardly a big problem though and you only really talking about 1 moment in the 2nd film and one in the 3rd. turning Gimli into a lame running-joke, I think this only really became a problem with the 3rd film. There was only really the "not the beard" moment in the 2nd film, which didn't really bother me. the fake english accents were atrocious, Which ones were. Didn't bother me. the hobbits grated on my nerves, Sam and Frodo's homo-erotic love affair was nauseating, etc. The hobbits were even worse in the book if anything, as was Frodo/Sam. For every poor decision Jackson made I can think of one that was excellent. Whether it was moving Gandalf's "pity and what we have to do with the time given us" speech to Moria or using the vision of the undying lands for Gandalf's speech about dying. Or indeed the opening scene of the 2nd movie or the lighting of the beacons sequence. And I'd rather watch the charge of the Rohirrim to about 90% of movies that are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonblade Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 How was Gimli a lame running joke? He was still a badass fighter. And I find it hillarious whenever Tolkien geeks defend the 'characters' of the book. Tolkien couldn't care less about character development, leaving most of his characters into cardboard cut-outs. Which is partly why I didn't like the book in the first place. p.s. FYI, "fake" english accents were not the intent. The intent was to have hobbits, orcs, and humans with their own accents. As far as I can recall, nobody represented England in the movies. I swear, some of you people just go out of your way to find something to bitch and moan about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And some of you really behave like PJ is the prophet and any criticism is High Heresy. We're allowed not like the cunt, and we're allowed not being thrilled at him directing the Hobbit. End of story, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurytus Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And some of you really behave like PJ is the prophet and any criticism is High Heresy. We're allowed not like the cunt, and we're allowed not being thrilled at him directing the Hobbit. End of story, get over it. Would that argument have worked just as well without the bad language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demonblade Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 And some of you really behave like PJ is the prophet and any criticism is High Heresy. Oh yeah, which ones of us behave like that? Evidence please, or just admit you're talking out of your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Every single thread on LOTR movies, or not even about it sometimes, on every board that I've been on and someone dared criticise the man and say they didn't like <gasp> the movie, someone falls on them like a ton of bricks. And just because you play offended doesn't mean I'm not right, or that I care enough to look for evidence that everyone should be well aware of - it's been years the things came out. I think the man is an overhyped hack, I'm not alone in this thinking, and no amount of telling me how great he is will change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathis Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Oh great, another Lotr slanging match. It'll be Calibander vs Eurytus, round.....21? 22? Fight! Fight! Fight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I know the folks on the Tolkien boards are by now batshit tired of this ongoing ordeal. If there is such a thing as a momentum to make The Hobbit, it has passed. That said, I'd just like for them to make it. With or without Jackson. Regardless of what Jackson did with the LoTR, which is not what this thread is supposed to be about, they should just go ahead and make the film. Reconcile with PJ. Or don't, and get someone else. As mentioned, New Line is not doing well and they need a really big tentpole release. They plan on that being The Hobbit and I believe also Terminator 4. Just do it and stop pissing around. There's been no news on the Hobbit adaptation for three quarters of a year now, much too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurytus Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Every single thread on LOTR movies, or not even about it sometimes, on every board that I've been on and someone dared criticise the man and say they didn't like <gasp> the movie, someone falls on them like a ton of bricks. And just because you play offended doesn't mean I'm not right, or that I care enough to look for evidence that everyone should be well aware of - it's been years the things came out. I think the man is an overhyped hack, I'm not alone in this thinking, and no amount of telling me how great he is will change my mind. And you've seen that happen in this thread where exactly? Funny that the people who try to debate specifics about the film are deemed unreasonable whereas someone who just says "he's a hack/cunt" is presumably enlightened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aghrivaine Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Funny that the people who try to debate specifics about the film are deemed unreasonable whereas someone who just says "he's a hack/cunt" is presumably enlightened. ...and I might add, anyone who thinks LOTR was anything other than brilliant is far more of a cunt than Peter Jackson. (sorry, that was entirely obligatory Calibandar-baiting..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 I've sofar been able to resist the urge to lock and engage Aghrivaine. It's getting tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niamh Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Funny that the people who try to debate specifics about the film are deemed unreasonable whereas someone who just says "he's a hack/cunt" is presumably enlightened. Sorry to have offended you (well, ok, not). I have debated this since 2003 and have no need to look enlightened anymore. Now I only have pleasure in being downright offensive about it, particularly when it's off-topic. If you saw R+L=J dead horse arguments in every single damn GRRM thread you ever opened over 4 years you'd get nervous too. All that irrelevant rubbish said, the Hobbit would suit PJ's college joke style a deal better, and since PJ is also the only way to have WETA, it was always a certainty that New Line would lose to public opinion. Whether some of us like it or not. Considering the alternative was Sam Raimi, even I feel sort of relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 Back to the adaptation in discussion, New Line wants to do the Hobbit in two movies by pulling from the LotR appendix. When Tolkien retconed the Hobbit while writing LotR (like making Gollum's ring The One Ring), he added a bunch of stuff about where Gandalf was when he left the dwarves on their own. I believe it includes Saruman, Gladriel, and Aragorn among others. From what I've read (over a year ago now, so consider it firmly in the rumor realm), New Line watns to tie in the events between the Hobbit and LotR too. On the one hand, this sounds cool, making the two movie series more tightly connected. Then again, it also feels like deliberate bloating to get another movie out of the books. Does this mean they're going to do the Hobbit and then a LotR prequel? Or stretch the events from the Hobbit across two movies and reorganize the "prequel" events to take place concurrently? Maybe I should go read the appendix... lol Originally, Miramax watned PJ to do LotR in 2 movies because 3 was too long. So PJ went to New Line and made three 4+ hour movies (expanded editions) instead. Now they're taking a single book and expanding it into two moives. Money changes everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurytus Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 The big problem with the Hobbit is that if it is adapted in any way accurately from the book then the movie will not be very much like the Lord of the Rings, at least until it gets to Laketown and the Battle of the Five Armies at least. There will be problems with the trolls (cockney trolls discussing how to cook Dwarves will immediately make it more of a kids film than Lord of the Rings) and Beorn for starters. New Line will want to bring in the same sort of audience that liked Lord of the Rings and made it profitable. So I can see the Hobbit being changed quite a bit. Gandalf v the Necromancer could very well be brought in. I could see the incident with the Goblins being expanded too (although that will be difficult to clearly differentiate from Moria if they are not careful). The Dwarves will need to be reduced in number I would think. All in all I think the Hobbit will be a tougher job than the Lord of the Rings simply because the book itself does not mesh with Lord of the Rings as well as it might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted September 30, 2007 Share Posted September 30, 2007 The Dwarves will need to be reduced in number I would think. The would defeat the purpose of brining Bilbo aboard. He was their "Lucky Number", making the group 14 instead of an unlucky 13. Maybe more of the vikings in Eaters of the Dead (13th Warrior) would have survived if they had recruited one more. Damn that soothsayer and her bones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.