NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you rather attend the new Lord of the Rings: The Musical (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060918/wl_uk_afp/afpentertainmentbritain_060918164533)?

or

Read the "newest" (but not really) tolkien book (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_en_ot/books_new_tolkien_1)?


or

just sit around and wait for the hobbit film to come out and hope peter jackson directs it?


oh and dont forget why you chose such a thing......

DISCUSS!


poll coming.........

ah well i was bored what can i say.......

I would rather read another Machiavelli book.

I would read the book.

I would rather read something by Tolkien complied by his son (who spent most of his life with his father) than watch something that leaves out parts and changes parts to make it more "cool".

Yay! Gogo Narn i Chîn Húrin!

if a hobbit movie can be made in new zealand, ill go see it. peter jackson has a good understanding of what needs to be in a tolkien movie.

the musical is a terrible idea. i will never pay money to see such a thing. im not fond of "broadway" shows anyway.

there is a chance i might read the book. its doubtful but C.tolkien has been working on it for a long time and he has an editor so maybe it wont suck as much as the silmarillion did

I would read the book.

So would I...in fact, I finished the Silmarillon last week, I finished the Hobbit yesterday, and I just finished the first chapter of Fellowship of the Ring this morning.

That said, if they ever made a musical out of Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" album...I would be there for opening night. :)

peter jackson has a good understanding of what needs to be in a tolkien movie

What, like elves at Helm's Deep? :rolleyes:

Oh, noes, not a musical, please!

As for the Hobbit movie, well ... I liked the animated one from years ago, especially Richard Boone doing Smaug's voice (though I hated the way the Elves were drawn). We'll see.

... What, like elves at Helm's Deep? :rolleyes:

And Aragorn getting separated from the Rohirrim on the way to Helm's Deep? Or like the Ents refusing to help until they saw the devastation Saruman had caused? Like Elrond making Arwen set out westward? Like ignoring the years between Bilbo's birthday party and Frodo's setting out to Rivendell? Like massacring the Council of Elrond? Like having Faramir take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath?

I'm surprised Jackson spelled the title correctly. Nice cinematography, though.

So would I...in fact, I finished the Silmarillon last week, I finished the Hobbit yesterday, and I just finished the first chapter of Fellowship of the Ring this morning.

You wrote all those? I had thought they had all been around earlier already... :eek:

Spell Tolkien correctly? ;)

Spell Tolkien correctly? ;)

:eek: I didn't even notice. :rolleyes:

YAY! A musical! :D I'd so watch it. (For the same reason I watched the musical of my favourite anime, Bleach, all one and a half hours of it, in Japanese with no subtitles. What is the reason? Pfft, like I know? :p)

I love shit like this. Seriously.

So would I...in fact, I finished the Silmarillon last week, I finished the Hobbit yesterday, and I just finished the first chapter of Fellowship of the Ring this morning.

That said, if they ever made a musical out of Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" album...I would be there for opening night. :)



What, like elves at Helm's Deep? :rolleyes:

yes like the elves at helm's deep. i certainly wasnt tolkien but it made the movie better.

did you know that he had originally planned to have ARWEN at helm's deep too? only fan outrage made them redo it.

YAY! A musical! :D I'd so watch it. (For the same reason I watched the musical of my favourite anime, Bleach, all one and a half hours of it, in Japanese with no subtitles. What is the reason? Pfft, like I know? :p)

I love shit like this. Seriously.

Hmm ... on further consideration, there are possibilities ... maybe a snappy duet between Gimli and Legolas as they're killing Orcs at Helm's Deep?

I refuse to have anything to do with lord of the rings after the painfully long end of the last movie I couldn’t give a rats arse

Would you rather attend the new Lord of the Rings: The Musical (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060918/wl_uk_afp/afpentertainmentbritain_060918164533)?

or

Read the "newest" (but not really) tolkien book (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_en_ot/books_new_tolkien_1)?


or

just sit around and wait for the hobbit film to come out and hope peter jackson directs it?


oh and dont forget why you chose such a thing......

DISCUSS!


poll coming.........There's a new musical? I liked the old one, eventhough the plot was clearly from the Hobbit...

I want to see Legolas and Aragorn singing that duet from Moulin Rouge.

"We should be lo~ve~rs!!!"
"We can't do that!"
"We should be lo~~~~ve~rs!!! And that's a fact!"

I want to see Legolas and Aragorn singing that duet from Moulin Rouge.

"We should be lo~ve~rs!!!"
"We can't do that!"
"We should be lo~~~~ve~rs!!! And that's a fact!"

:eek:

Psych!!! I cannot wait for The Children of Húrin to be released!

I really love the existing versions of that tale.

:eek:

Oh come on! What? You can't deny that there's something going on between those two! :D :p :D

Oh come on! What? You can't deny that there's something going on between those two! :D :p :D

Maybe but I sure don't want to hear them singing about it! :p

The man is Tolkien.

The man is Tolkien.

And incidentally he was born in my country. w00t! :D

The Simarillion sucked as a novel.
Its was never meant to be released as a novel on its own, and was only done so, by C. Tolkien as a way to make some money.

He isnt a writer, and neither was his father, really. J.R.R just got lucky and happened to come up with one of the best stories ever.
Nothing except The Hobbit, or the Trilogy should ever have seen print.

The Silmarillion is a whole lot better than LotR.

The Simarillion sucked as a novel.
Its was never meant to be released as a novel on its own, and was only done so, by C. Tolkien as a way to make some money.

He isnt a writer, and neither was his father, really. J.R.R just got lucky and happened to come up with one of the best stories ever.
Nothing except The Hobbit, or the Trilogy should ever have seen print.

Nothing wrong with making money if your old man left you the mauscripts and all.

I have almost all of the follow-on volumes that Christopher Tolkien published and some of them are very interesting glimpses into JRR's mind as he was writing LOTR, and into his thoughts about myth and mythmaking. I would very much regret not having them in print.

Tolkien didn't so much write a story as he wrote a history book on an imaginary place. It was rather like reading a history of South Africa, where Frodo was Nelson Mandella (Oh my god, my country will hit me for that... :p). He spent a lot of time explaining what things looked like, and what the situation was than he did action.

Which, come to think of it, is probably why I've never been able to finish the series and watched the movies instead.

And I still say Legolas and Aragorn need to sing a love duet. (Better than Aragorn going with Arwen - she was his adopted sister for crying out loud! :p)

And I still say Legolas and Aragorn need to sing a love duet. (Better than Aragorn going with Arwen - she was his adopted sister for crying out loud! :p)

yes but they didnt meet until he was 20 and she was 2739 so its not like they grew up together or anything.

... And I still say Legolas and Aragorn need to sing a love duet. (Better than Aragorn going with Arwen - she was his adopted sister for crying out loud! :p)

They were cousins, many, many, many times removed. Elrond and Elros were brothers, Arwen is Elrond's child while Aragorn was the descendant of Elros. Cousins.

They were cousins, many, many, many times removed. Elrond and Elros were brothers, Arwen is Elrond's child while Aragorn was the descendant of Elros. Cousins.

first cousins 100 times removed?

or however many generations it takes to get from elros to aragorn.

first cousins 100 times removed?

or however many generations it takes to get from elros to aragorn.

Great, thanks, now I'll have to go count when i get home. :rolleyes:

The Silmarillion is a whole lot better than LotR.

I agree.

The Simarillion sucked as a novel.
Its was never meant to be released as a novel on its own

That's not true, John did intend to publish it as a novel. He was compiling all his notes into a coherent story up until he died. Christopher just finished it off.

yes like the elves at helm's deep. i certainly wasnt tolkien but it made the movie better.

did you know that he had originally planned to have ARWEN at helm's deep too? only fan outrage made them redo it.

Made the movie better?

First of all...if you're going to make a movie based on a book, you can at least PRETEND to adhere to the themes of the book. The whole point of Helm's Deep was that it proved that Men as a race had the power to stand up to evil without the aid of the Eldar (as they would do again at Pelennor fields).

Throwing the Elves in there removes that accomplishment completely, and makes the Rohirrim out to be a bunch of incompetent bunglers instead of the proud and fearsome people that they were.

Secondly, in the movie, the only Elf you see after the wall is blown up is Haldir. There are Elves fighting behind the wall, but they are apparently deaf and dumb, as none retreated into the keep with the humans. Having introduced an element of the story that wasn't in the book, Jackson could no longer reconcile events in his movie with what happened in the book...so the elves just go away. That is hardly good storytelling.

Jackson had a LOT of excellent help making those movies (most specifically in minature and computer effects, concept art, and musical production), and they are good movies if one disregards the source material.

That said, the man took someone else's artistic vision, and twisted it into a cash cow of epic proportions. Sure, whoever directed modern LOTR movies was going to get rich...but nearly every change to Tolkien's story in the movies can be traced back to a single line of thought.

"It'll sell more"

In short, Jackson didn't want to tell Tolkien's story...as Tolkien's story was not profitable. The man is a fucking tool...and I flatly refuse to ever see another one of his films.

Nothing wrong with making money if your old man left you the mauscripts and all.

I have almost all of the follow-on volumes that Christopher Tolkien published and some of them are very interesting glimpses into JRR's mind as he was writing LOTR, and into his thoughts about myth and mythmaking. I would very much regret not having them in print.

Yes, but they dont always make for good stories, do they?

The Simarillion was a terrible bore.
It was more or less the Bible of the Elves, and while its ocassionally neat to learn about such fellows an Manwei, it doesnt make for good reading.
If a person were a LotR fanatic, and wanted to know what Gandalf really was, or what exactly Suaron was, then sure...that book is for you. However, a person looking to find another great Tolkien tale will likely be sadly dissapointed.

Its kind of like the enormous appendix to Return of the King, its nearly half the book, and while terrific filler material for anyone who wants to know about significant events in the rest of the Age, it didnt need to be added to the novel.

I agree.



That's not true, John did intend to publish it as a novel. He was compiling all his notes into a coherent story up until he died. Christopher just finished it off.


Not the way I heard it, but if that is true, then it was a mistake.

Its boring.

Not a good story for anyone looking for one.

Made the movie better?In short, Jackson didn't want to tell Tolkien's story...as Tolkien's story was not profitable. The man is a fucking tool...and I flatly refuse to ever see another one of his films.


Do you realize how long it would have taken to cover everything in the books, and make sure it went into the film?
Would you have wanted to sit through a six hour movie, three times?

Probably not.

No book-to-movie screenplay is ever going to remain entirely faithful to the book, slight changes will be made, and things will be left out.

Would it have been absolutely necessary to include Tom Bombadil?

Fuck no.

He had nothing to do with the story, and his only purpose was to provide the Hobbits with a breif respite, and show that there were elements of Middle Earth wich Sauron's power couldnt touch.

Thats it.

He and Goldberry were not pivotal to the plot...so they were omitted from the screen version, as was Saruman's death in Hobbiton.
That one I lament as well, as it showed that the War of the Rings touched every corner, and everyones life....however....again RotK was three and a half hours long....did you really want to endure another 45 minutes, to explain that?

Fanboys make terrible film directors, and this is why choices like the ones Jackson made were for the best.
You may not have agreed with them, but it isnt all about pleasing you specificallly, is it?

*snip*

First of all...I never thought LOTR was suited for a Theatrical release. I would much rather see a mini-series on HBO, where they CAN split it up into managable amounts of time and still retain much of the original material.

That said, I should have specified that I wasn't speaking in regards to omissions. LOTR is a huge story, and it is quite accurate to state that some things (Bombadil in particular) needed to be left out.

What I was refering to was ADDITIONS made by Jackson (such as Elves at Helm's Deep), that have no basis in the original material. Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath was a perfect example of this...Faramir's character was completely and utterly changed by Jackson's revision of the material, and to do so was to do a complete disservice to Tolkien's original work.

What I was refering to was ADDITIONS made by Jackson (such as Elves at Helm's Deep), that have no basis in the original material. Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath was a perfect example of this...Faramir's character was completely and utterly changed by Jackson's revision of the material, and to do so was to do a complete disservice to Tolkien's original work.

I see.

I do agree that Faramir's character was altered a bit by Jackson, but in the end, we see the needed result.
Faramir was an antithesis to Boromir.

Boromir succumbed to the power of the ring, and attacked Frodo.
Faramir, was the gentler, and wiser brother, and managed to resist the urge to seize the ring for himself, and thus doom Middle Earth.
He did not fall sway to it, and helped Frodo,and thus, "show his quality".

If anything, the Osgiliath thing expounded on his character.

I see.

I do agree that Faramir's character was altered a bit by Jackson, but in the end, we see the needed result.
Faramir was an antithesis to Boromir.

Boromir succumbed to the power of the ring, and attacked Frodo.
Faramir, was the gentler, and wiser brother, and managed to resist the urge to seize the ring for himself, and thus doom Middle Earth.
He did not fall sway to it, and helped Frodo,and thus, "show his quality".

If anything, the Osgiliath thing expounded on his character.

But in the books, he is never even tempted. He recoginizes evil for what it is, and renounces it utterly without so much as a second thought.

The movies also sorely lack the true extent of support for Faramir among the people of the City. Had they not bothered with the wasteful trip to Osgiliath, they could have thrown in a few minutes to illustrate just what type of person he was to the city and it's people...a theme barely touched upon in the movies.

oh no! not a musical! there are already too many musicals in the world. the first musical should have been the last. and then the script and score should have been burned. hate musicals. hate. hate.

Id rather read Robert Jordan. I read Tolkiens works. Loved them. I read them before most posters were born and i reread them and enjoyed the movies. OK i get it. Been there, done that. But now its time for something i havnt seen or read before, that has a huge depth and complexity just like Tolkiens world and The Wheel of Time series, prolly 13,000 pages continues to be fantastic writing (give or take a book or 2) and fits the bill. Jordan is seriously and possibly terminally ill and may never finish the series which is the only downside of my recommending the series but if you havnt read it and want a story that you can detail obsess about till your head explodes, just read the first book and youll be trapped for life.

Yes, but they dont always make for good stories, do they?

The Simarillion was a terrible bore.
It was more or less the Bible of the Elves, and while its ocassionally neat to learn about such fellows an Manwei, it doesnt make for good reading.
If a person were a LotR fanatic, and wanted to know what Gandalf really was, or what exactly Suaron was, then sure...that book is for you. However, a person looking to find another great Tolkien tale will likely be sadly dissapointed.

Its kind of like the enormous appendix to Return of the King, its nearly half the book, and while terrific filler material for anyone who wants to know about significant events in the rest of the Age, it didnt need to be added to the novel.

Okay, then we're just talking about whether you liked The Silmarillion or not, which you didn't. Not a problem, you weren't obliged to like it. And I must admit that yes, when it came out there was a huge amount of hype and yeah, it turned out not to be another LOTR.

Made the movie better?

First of all...if you're going to make a movie based on a book, you can at least PRETEND to adhere to the themes of the book. The whole point of Helm's Deep was that it proved that Men as a race had the power to stand up to evil without the aid of the Eldar (as they would do again at Pelennor fields).

Throwing the Elves in there removes that accomplishment completely, and makes the Rohirrim out to be a bunch of incompetent bunglers instead of the proud and fearsome people that they were.

Secondly, in the movie, the only Elf you see after the wall is blown up is Haldir. There are Elves fighting behind the wall, but they are apparently deaf and dumb, as none retreated into the keep with the humans. Having introduced an element of the story that wasn't in the book, Jackson could no longer reconcile events in his movie with what happened in the book...so the elves just go away. That is hardly good storytelling.

Jackson had a LOT of excellent help making those movies (most specifically in minature and computer effects, concept art, and musical production), and they are good movies if one disregards the source material.

That said, the man took someone else's artistic vision, and twisted it into a cash cow of epic proportions. Sure, whoever directed modern LOTR movies was going to get rich...but nearly every change to Tolkien's story in the movies can be traced back to a single line of thought.

"It'll sell more"

In short, Jackson didn't want to tell Tolkien's story...as Tolkien's story was not profitable. The man is a fucking tool...and I flatly refuse to ever see another one of his films.

pfffft

peter jackson did the impossible. he made lord of the rings into 3 very watchable movies.

a movie isnt a freaking documentary. its an art form all its own. peter jackson and company did an excellent job translating a very difficult story into great movies. if that required changing things (and it did) then it required changing things. it didnt change the BOOK now did it? if you want pure tolkien the book still exists. if you want a good movie, go see jacksons version.

pfffft

peter jackson did the impossible. he made lord of the rings into 3 very watchable movies.

a movie isnt a freaking documentary. its an art form all its own. peter jackson and company did an excellent job translating a very difficult story into great movies. if that required changing things (and it did) then it required changing things. it didnt change the BOOK now did it? if you want pure tolkien the book still exists. if you want a good movie, go see jacksons version.

What "very difficult story?" LOTR is about as straight-forward a narrative as I've run across. It does divide in two at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, but Jackson handled that reasonably well, so I fail to understand the compulsion to change other non-trivial aspects of the plot. Introducing the changes required more work, I should think, than sticking to the book's plot, so it can't have been done to save money and effort. I'll grant you that the movies are watchable but really, were the changes that necessary? I like to look at Liv Tyler as much as the next person but her character doesn't have that big a part, you know?

But in the books, he is never even tempted. He recoginizes evil for what it is, and renounces it utterly without so much as a second thought.

The movies also sorely lack the true extent of support for Faramir among the people of the City. Had they not bothered with the wasteful trip to Osgiliath, they could have thrown in a few minutes to illustrate just what type of person he was to the city and it's people...a theme barely touched upon in the movies.

faramirs lack of temptation is a serious flaw in the book. here is the ring of ultimate evil and ultimate temptation, a thing that gandalf doesnt even dare TOUCH. a thing that elron and galadriel are tempted by. and yet faramir wouldnt touch it if he saw it lying by the side of the road? bullshit.

What "very difficult story?" LOTR is about as straight-forward a narrative as I've run across. It does divide in two at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, but Jackson handled that reasonably well, so I fail to understand the compulsion to change other non-trivial aspects of the plot. Introducing the changes required more work, I should think, than sticking to the book's plot, so it can't have been done to save money and effort. I'll grant you that the movies are watchable but really, were the changes that necessary? I like to look at Liv Tyler as much as the next person but her character doesn't have that big a part, you know?

it was necessary to expand arwen's role. tolkien didnt mind creating a world without women but modern people expect a bit of the feminine here and there. giving her glorfindels role in saving frodo was good, the mental connection thing worked pretty well and in the end he didnt send her to helm's deep which would have been an unforgiveable error.

the elves didnt belong at helm's deep but it worked well enough. especially in the theatrical version which left out the trees role in destroying the orcs. there was no way the rohirrim would have won on their own. and i loved the death of haldir. snotty elf comes to the rescue and pays the ultimate price. it was a good touch.

i think of them as 2 different works, independant of each other. the movies are good, have the feel of middle earth and get more people to read the books. it must be a surprise to fangirls out there to find out how old frodo really was and how much more there is to middle earth than they thought.

it was necessary to expand arwen's role. tolkien didnt mind creating a world without women but modern people expect a bit of the feminine here and there. giving her glorfindels role in saving frodo was good, the mental connection thing worked pretty well and in the end he didnt send her to helm's deep which would have been an unforgiveable error.

the elves didnt belong at helm's deep but it worked well enough. especially in the theatrical version which left out the trees role in destroying the orcs. there was no way the rohirrim would have won on their own. and i loved the death of haldir. snotty elf comes to the rescue and pays the ultimate price. it was a good touch.

i think of them as 2 different works, independant of each other. the movies are good, have the feel of middle earth and get more people to read the books. it must be a surprise to fangirls out there to find out how old frodo really was and how much more there is to middle earth than they thought.

*climbs down off high horse* I get a little overwrought about LOTR sometimes. It's just that one waited for such a long time for these films and then to have Jackson messing with the plot! Oh, well. Actually, I still find the old Ralph Bakshi version very entertaining. I went to rent it over the weekend and it was out, so perhaps I'm not the only one. Either that or someone was sitting in his living room going, "WTF!?!?"

:D Yeah, I imagine some Fangirls did do a double-take when they found that Frodo was in his 50s, and pudgy, too.

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring banana phone
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring banana phone
I've got this feeling, so appealing,
for us to get together and sing. Sing!

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring banana phone
Ding dong ding dong ding dong ding donana phone
It grows in bunches, I've got my hunches,
It's the best! Beats the rest!
Cellular, Modular, Interactivodular!

Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring banana phone
Boop-boo-ba-doo-ba-doop!
Ping pong ping pong ping pong ping panana phone
It's no baloney, it ain't a p(h)ony
My cellular bananular phone!

Don't need quarters, don't need dimes,
to call a friend of mine!
Don't need computer or TV,
to have a real good time!
I'll call for pizza. I'll call my cat.
I'll call the white house, have a chat!
I'll place a call around the world, operator get me Beijing
-jing-jing-jing!

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches;11706232Its boring.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. Much better than a lot of other crap. (Rowling, Crichton, etc)

No it isn't. Much better than a lot of other crap. (Rowling, Crichton, etc)

boring is in the eye of the beholder.

ive been a fan of lord of the rings for about 40 years and have read the books a dozen times

ive never made it through the silmarillion.

faramirs lack of temptation is a serious flaw in the book. here is the ring of ultimate evil and ultimate temptation, a thing that gandalf doesnt even dare TOUCH. a thing that elron and galadriel are tempted by. and yet faramir wouldnt touch it if he saw it lying by the side of the road? bullshit.

Interesting. I would have to totally disagree with you here. Faramir and Boromir are, in my analysis, very specifically meant to be foils of each other displaying the strength and weakness of man. Boromir displays man's folly, Faramir his redemption - and I think it's vitally important to the story, which is very specifically, if subtly, about the transfer of power in Middle Earth from elves to humans, to have a comparatively ordinary human take on that particular role, just as we needed comparatively ordinary hobbits to be the greatest heroes of the story.

I didn't really object to most of Peter Jackson's changes, except in a fairly good-natured grumbling sort of way, but a couple of them really were poor, poor choices on his part. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, while annoying, made some sense from a theatrical perspective. Totally altering Faramir's personality and having the Ents make snap decisions, however, were counterproductive, inconsistent, and just plain dumb. Ah, well...

Interesting. I would have to totally disagree with you here. Faramir and Boromir are, in my analysis, very specifically meant to be foils of each other displaying the strength and weakness of man. Boromir displays man's folly, Faramir his redemption - and I think it's vitally important to the story, which is very specifically, if subtly, about the transfer of power in Middle Earth from elves to humans, to have a comparatively ordinary human take on that particular role, just as we needed comparatively ordinary hobbits to be the greatest heroes of the story.


i never found faramir to be that strong a character. to suddenly have a character that the ring has zero effect on just doesnt make sense to me. to have him be tempted but be able to resist that temptation--something that boromir failed utterly at-- makes him a stronger man.


I didn't really object to most of Peter Jackson's changes, except in a fairly good-natured grumbling sort of way, but a couple of them really were poor, poor choices on his part. Replacing Glorfindel with Arwen, while annoying, made some sense from a theatrical perspective. Totally altering Faramir's personality and having the Ents make snap decisions, however, were counterproductive, inconsistent, and just plain dumb. Ah, well...

and its not that it doesnt bug me at all. i just see beyond the mistakes and see that he made a great set of films. it could have been an utter disaster in the hands of someone with less respect for the books.

i never found faramir to be that strong a character. to suddenly have a character that the ring has zero effect on just doesnt make sense to me. to have him be tempted but be able to resist that temptation--something that boromir failed utterly at-- makes him a stronger man.

I guess I didn't see the Ring as having zero effect on him - I just saw him as capable of resisting what pull it had on him from the outset. In the movie, he effectively gave into temptation and then later went back on that decision, which didn't make him appear strong so much as wishy-washy. :p (It should also be noted that the Ring's effect would logically be intensified for those who were already powerful - hence the greater, more obvious temptation experienced by Galadriel, Gandalf and so forth, and hence why small, insignificant, unambitious hobbits make the best Ring-bearers.)

and its not that it doesnt bug me at all. i just see beyond the mistakes and see that he made a great set of films. it could have been an utter disaster in the hands of someone with less respect for the books.

Here we are totally in agreement. They are excellent movies, though I honestly do believe that TTT is the weakest of the set, largely because of what I see as stupid changes on PJ's part. I do very much hope he makes a Hobbit movie, though (especially if he can get Ian Holm and Ian McKellen back for the leads - that would be fabulous). :)