NationStates Jolt Archive

Good news for Tolkien fans!

When I heard an American company won the rights; I figured it would be crappy!

At least with Jackson, there is a stronger chance Ian will play Gandalf again.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2007/tc20071218_443372.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Good for Peter Jackson (richer than rich now)...

Question: Where would you divide the Hobbit? We will have to wait a year to see the second half of the same book this time? Awww, that stinker! :headbang:

Good for Jackson. No one can do it better than him. But I doubt he would split the movie in two. They didn't with Goblet of Fire, why would they with the Hobbit. Unless I'm wrong, and correct me if I am, GOF is much longer than The Hobbit.

Good for Jackson. No one can do it better than him. But I doubt he would split the movie in two. They didn't with Goblet of Fire, why would they with the Hobbit. Unless I'm wrong, and correct me if I am, GOF is much longer than The Hobbit.

The article says it was Jacksons idea of splitting the movie into two that sold the producer guy on the idea.

Everything since Meet the Feebles has been downhill anyways.

There's not enough material to split it inot two movies. Why couldn't he have split ROTK into two movies? Then we could have had the scouring of the shire.

Fuck Peter Jackson.

There's not enough material to split it inot two movies. Why couldn't he have split ROTK into two movies? Then we could have had the scouring of the shire.

Fuck Peter Jackson.

His 'invented' ending was long enough to have done the scouring of the shire anyway, it didn't save him any time, he just didn't want to do it, thought it would be too much of an anti-climatic ending after the Ring Quest ending... Peter, you stinker! :gundge: lol

The article says it was Jacksons idea of splitting the movie into two that sold the producer guy on the idea.

Producer sees twice the revenue.

Producer sees twice the revenue.

The only good thing I can imagine about turing it into two films would be that they might be able to do ALL of the Hobbit and ALL of the characters in the book, and give it some justice that way... Unlike the abbreviated cartoon version which managed to cut out half the story and made it feel like they were just trying to get it over with.

I try and get into at most one nerd-fight a day, and I may have lit a powder-keg on another board about Mr. Jackson's Hobbit Movie, so all I'm going to say is:

Facepalm

The only good thing I can imagine about turing it into two films would be that they might be able to do ALL of the Hobbit and ALL of the characters in the book, and give it some justice that way... Unlike the abbreviated cartoon version which managed to cut out half the story and made it feel like they were just trying to get it over with.

I suppose they could do it old school.A whopping great film with an intermission.5 hours or so, like Gone with the Wind.

I suppose they could do it old school.A whopping great film with an intermission.5 hours or so, like Gone with the Wind.

Can you imagine?!?! OMGosh, geekfest nirvana at the theater complex! lol

Eugh. The reason that The Hobbit was reasonably tolerable is because it was easy reading and not too long or filled with pseudo-religious crap like the Lord of the Rings.

Peter Jackson will proceed to make another couple of films, which will both be about an hour too long each, in addition to somehow padding out a couple of hundred words of book into two films. Which I can't see happening well.

But there we go, they made their choice.

If you're going to be so faithful to the Hobbit that you need two movies to tell the whole story (and you do - Tolkien's work is pretty dense), I wonder why he did LOTR in just 3 movies. They would have been much better served by doing 6 or 7.

His 'invented' ending was long enough to have done the scouring of the shire anyway, it didn't save him any time, he just didn't want to do it, thought it would be too much of an anti-climatic ending after the Ring Quest ending... Peter, you stinker! :gundge: lol

He's done a lot to the movies I dont' like:

Turned Faramir into a whiny bitch

Faramir's act of coolness -making Frodo leave before the ring had a chance to persuade him- was omitted because Peter didn't think it was believable.

Taking the women and children to Helm's deep.

Making Aragorn this emo "I don't want this and never asked for this" person.

Arwen. Enough said.

Tying Arwen's life to the War of the Ring.

The conversation between Aragon and Elrond in the tent before Aragorn went into the mountains.

Denethor's death. It was much better when he layed down and died with dignity instead of trying to break the current 100 M dash record of Gondor and hurling himself off a cliff that looks like it's made to hurl oneself off. Speaking of, I've always wondered about the poor sod's house that's under that point. I mean, that has to attract a fair share of jumpers.

Everyone with the Barbie doll hair wigs. I understand Orlando bloom needing a wig. But why the hell did the hobbits need wigs??? What the hell is wrong with them growing their hair out a few inches???

Despite all that was wrong, the movies were still pretty good. I think it's more a testament to the original material and the DP than to Jackson. The casting was also really fantastic.

He's done a lot to the movies I dont' like:

Turned Faramir into a whiny bitch

I would have spelled it Beotch...

Faramir's act of coolness -making Frodo leave before the ring had a chance to persuade him- was omitted because Peter didn't think it was believable.

Hmm, what am I thinking of? I thought I remember him sending Frodo off before bringing him all the way back to the city...

Taking the women and children to Helm's deep. That part makes sense to me actually, what are you supossed to do, let the Orcs have'em?

Making Aragorn this emo "I don't want this and never asked for this" person.

[QUOTE=Snafturi;13305891]Arwen. Enough said.

Tying Arwen's life to the War of the Ring. She was pretty enough, Liked watching her, didn't need the love affair with Aragorn though, agree with that. Maybe the national lampoon version, where she has a love scene with a hobbit though, that might've worked :p

The conversation between Aragon and Elrond in the tent before Aragorn went into the mountains.

No big deal here, no opinion.

Denethor's death. It was much better when he layed down and died with dignity instead of trying to break the current 100 M dash record of Gondor and hurling himself off a cliff that looks like it's made to hurl oneself off. Speaking of, I've always wondered about the poor sod's house that's under that point. I mean, that has to attract a fair share of jumpers.

Ah, but that looked cool ;) No different than having the shark explode in Jaws instead of just dying and sinking to the bottom... No need for rational sense to come into it when they give us such a nice optical feast! lol

Everyone with the Barbie doll hair wigs. I understand Orlando bloom needing a wig. But why the hell did the hobbits need wigs??? What the hell is wrong with them growing their hair out a few inches???

You forget, the hobbits were played by two people each. Short people with wigs and normal people with wigs. Someone has to wear a wig, might as well be both of them so the hair looks the same for both...

Despite all that was wrong, the movies were still pretty good. I think it's more a testament to the original material and the DP than to Jackson. The casting was also really fantastic.


No, no no, it’s too late to back up now, you've made me realize the error of my ways, I'm going to go home and burn my LOTR DVD's as soon as I get there and send Peter Jackson a nasty letter... :D

He's done a lot to the movies I dont' like:

Turned Faramir into a whiny bitch

Faramir's act of coolness -making Frodo leave before the ring had a chance to persuade him- was omitted because Peter didn't think it was believable.

Taking the women and children to Helm's deep.

Making Aragorn this emo "I don't want this and never asked for this" person.

Arwen. Enough said.

Tying Arwen's life to the War of the Ring.

The conversation between Aragon and Elrond in the t ent before Aragorn went into the mountains.

Denethor's death. It was much better when he layed down and died with dignity instead of trying to break the current 100 M dash record of Gondor and hurling himself off a cliff that looks like it's made to hurl oneself off. Speaking of, I've always wondered about the poor sod's house that's under that point. I mean, that has to attract a fair share of jumpers.

Everyone with the Barbie doll hair wigs. I understand Orlando bloom needing a wig. But why the hell did the hobbits need wigs??? What the hell is wrong with them growing their hair out a few inches???

Despite all that was wrong, the movies were still pretty good. I think it's more a testament to the original material and the DP than to Jackson. The casting was also really fantastic.

I don't mind some of these much, but I'm 100% in agreement about Faramir. Jackson totally destroyed what Faramir was supposed to represent, and that irritated me greatly.

You did, however, leave out the other Highly Irritating Change - the ents making an instant decision to attack Isengard. They're ents. They don't DO that. And it's not as if Jackson completely changed the nature of the ents - he let us see the Entmoot and witness that they don't do anything quickly, and then he randomly makes them do something quickly just so Merry and Pippin can look more important. (Because, y'know, it's not like they get to do anything important later like, I don't know, fighting a freaking Ringwraith or saving a major character's life or anything like that.) Grr.

I did like the movies very much overall - the casting, as you said, was really very, very good - but I still can't watch "The Two Towers" without sulking during all of Faramir's scenes and yelling at the ents to consider attacking Isengard for, oh, at least a day or two after seeing the new extent of the devastation.

In my opinion theres enough material to do two movies if you do ALL the material. They may not be the six hour long Lord of the Rings and King Kong movies like we're used to, but I think they'll still be excellent films.

I would have spelled it Beotch...
That too.


Hmm, what am I thinking of? I thought I remember him sending Frodo off before bringing him all the way back to the city...
He sent them off way early. He sat Frodo down and was like "I know what you're carrying, I know it destroyed my brother. I don't want to be a dick but you have to leave. Now.

That part makes sense to me actually, what are you supossed to do, let the Orcs have'em?
In the books there was a separate stronghold up in the mountains for the women and children. The Army must destroy the king to dominate the realm, so they'll attack Helm's deep where the king went first.

She was pretty enough, Liked watching her, didn't need the love affair with Aragorn though, agree with that. Maybe the national lampoon version, where she has a love scene with a hobbit though, that might've worked :p
Her "I am crazy woman with sword": moment was dumb.

No big deal here, no opinion.
It was so exxagerated. All the dramatic gusts of wind. The comical unveiling of the sword. It was a paraody.


Ah, but that looked cool ;) No different than having the shark explode in Jaws instead of just dying and sinking to the bottom... No need for rational sense to come into it when they give us such a nice optical feast! lol
Denethor was cool in the books. He was reasonable but driven mad by looking into the palatir. He was a stress eating nutcase in the movie.


You forget, the hobbits were played by two people each. Short people with wigs and normal people with wigs. Someone has to wear a wig, might as well be both of them so the hair looks the same for both...

They could have given the short people the wigs that are modeled after the on camara actor's hair. Like even television series do.


No, no no, it’s too late to back up now, you've made me realize the error of my ways, I'm going to go home and burn my LOTR DVD's as soon as I get there and send Peter Jackson a nasty letter... :D

Peter Jackson did so much wrong. I did like Minas Morgul. Not exactly the way it's desrcibed in the books. But not bad.

I don't mind some of these much, but I'm 100% in agreement about Faramir. Jackson totally destroyed what Faramir was supposed to represent, and that irritated me greatly.

You did, however, leave out the other Highly Irritating Change - the ents making an instant decision to attack Isengard. They're ents. They don't DO that. And it's not as if Jackson completely changed the nature of the ents - he let us see the Entmoot and witness that they don't do anything quickly, and then he randomly makes them do something quickly just so Merry and Pippin can look more important. (Because, y'know, it's not like they get to do anything important later like, I don't know, fighting a freaking Ringwraith or saving a major character's life or anything like that.) Grr.

I did like the movies very much overall - the casting, as you said, was really very, very good - but I still can't watch "The Two Towers" without sulking during all of Faramir's scenes and yelling at the ents to consider attacking Isengard for, oh, at least a day or two after seeing the new extent of the devastation.
Yeah, the Ent irritated me too. Two Towers was an abortion. I usually dont' watch that one.

Good news for Tolkien fans!

When I heard an American company won the rights; I figured it would be crappy!

At least with Jackson, there is a stronger chance Ian will play Gandalf again.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2007/tc20071218_443372.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives

Let's just hope he doesn't ruin it like he did the Scouring of the Shire.

There's not enough material to split it inot two movies. Why couldn't he have split ROTK into two movies? Then we could have had the scouring of the shire.

Fuck Peter Jackson.There is more than enough material to split The Hobbit into two movies.

But truly, fuck Peter Jackson. He will just mess up another Tolkien tale.

Everything since Meet the Feebles has been downhill anyways.

Meet the Feebles was the apex of civilization.

Well I would remind people that LOTR never had a real divide between the books, initially LOTR was one book (well it is these days mostly), but it was split into 3 parts when first published because the post-war years meant a shortage of paper. So the split was pretty artificial anyways, especially when you actually read the book and look from book 1 to 2, their is absolutely no conclusion really at the end of the fellowship, it was just continued totally by two.

Question: Where would you divide the Hobbit?
Doesn't matter, as that's not what they're doing. It's "The Hobbit," then some made-up sequel.

Good for Jackson. No one can do it better than him. But I doubt he would split the movie in two. They didn't with Goblet of Fire, why would they with the Hobbit. Unless I'm wrong, and correct me if I am, GOF is much longer than The Hobbit.

More than half of Goblet of Fire wasn't filmed.

More than half of Goblet of Fire wasn't filmed.
Then they made a bunch of absurd crap up to replace what they didn't film.

There's not enough material to split it inot two movies. Why couldn't he have split ROTK into two movies? Then we could have had the scouring of the shire.

Fuck Peter Jackson.

Perhaps he's going to flesh out the wizards' battle with the Necromancer. That'd earn it the right to two movies.

Doesn't matter, as that's not what they're doing. It's "The Hobbit," then some made-up sequel.

Thats what Ive heard as well.

To that, I say:


What?

What sequel?

Five Armies fight, Arkenstone gets lost, dragon dies, Hobbit goes home with a ring.

The end.

Thats what Ive heard as well.

To that, I say:


What?

What sequel?

Five Armies fight, Arkenstone gets lost, dragon dies, Hobbit goes home with a ring.

The end.

Then comes the LOTR series?

I'm sure if he cuts out enough footage he can fit it into one movie and use it as a sequel.

I don't mind some of these much, but I'm 100% in agreement about Faramir. Jackson totally destroyed what Faramir was supposed to represent, and that irritated me greatly.

The problem was that to make the series more friendly to the movie going public it was felt that there had to be a strong romance in the very first film. There was only a hint of anything between Aragorn and Arwen in the books because as a King in Exile his whole life had to be on hold for symbolic storytelling reasons.

Making that concession to movie-making meant that Aragorn and Arwen had to be composite characters mixing them with Faramir and Eowyn. Which of course means that Faramir and Eowyn had already had the life sucked out of them before they ever made an appearance. There just wasn't anything left for them to represent.

I demand to see a the Erid Luin and a butch of fats hobbits fighting a talking trolls.

I never understand why they change the movies when the story in the books is much better. That's what they did with LOTR. Jackson made up his own bs and it was far worse than the story in the book.

This is just about money.

You'll have two hobbit movies and then two special director's cut and so on.

The article says it was Jacksons idea of splitting the movie into two that sold the producer guy on the idea.

Producer sees twice the revenue.

Of course it was Jackson's idea to split it...everyone (but most importantly Jackson) makes more money that way.

If the Hobbit is split into two films (hardly necessary), then I will not see either. Despite wanting to see a live action film of this book for most of my life, I will not sit through more of Jackson's tacked-on, made-up bullshit (Elves at Helm's Deep!?! :upyours:).

His "interpretations" are just an excuse to butcher a story that is already better than anything his feeble mind could come up with.

His 'invented' ending was long enough to have done the scouring of the shire anyway, it didn't save him any time, he just didn't want to do it, thought it would be too much of an anti-climatic ending after the Ring Quest ending... Peter, you stinker! lol


I agree with this, though. Reading the books, it was like, YES!! RING IS DESTROYED LOLZ and then....wait, there's more action? Very, very anticlimactic. Tolkien did a good job covering all the bases and writing a complete story and tying up every last end in his world, but really, everything leading up to that point was "DESTROY THE RING!!!1" and to have much more plotline after that's been accomplished would have just taken away from the movie.

People like to complain about everything, and obviously most NS'ers could do a better job of making the LOTR movies, but honestly, I thought Jackson's movies were very well done on the whole.

Not sure how the Hobbit will be split into two movies, though...I admit that is puzzling.

PETER JACKSON MUST DIE

PETER JACKSON MUST DIEQFT

Then they made a bunch of absurd crap up to replace what they didn't film.
Isn't it more fun that way? All the Harry Potter films suck to some degree. Goblet worse than most.

Perhaps he's going to flesh out the wizards' battle with the Necromancer. That'd earn it the right to two movies.
So more of PJ making up stuff instead of sticking to the book.

... better Peter Jackson than

*shudder*


Ewe Boll...

... better Peter Jackson than

*shudder*


Ewe Boll...

Suddenly my stomach turns inside out when I read that name,... I wonder why?

When rumors surfaced that Boll had expressed interest in a Metal Gear Solid movie, and claimed to have been given a script to read, Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima responded in his audioblog HIDECHAN, "Absolutely not! I don't know why Uwe Boll is even talking about this kind of thing. We've never talked to him. It's impossible that we'd ever do a movie with him."[11] (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/03/kojima-on-uwe-boll-its-impossible)

Suddenly my stomach turns inside out when I read that name,... I wonder why?



I'm sure Michael Bay will direct Metal Gear Solid. Heaven forbid they use a director with talent.

More than half of Goblet of Fire wasn't filmed.

Yeah more than half of tidieous subplots. Compared to OOTP, GOF was far more faithful. Though frankly I'll read GOF cold before I pick The Hobbit again. Tolkien, he's a brilliant writer but he writes way to much fluff.

I'm sure Michael Bay will direct Metal Gear Solid. Heaven forbid they use a director with talent.

Knowing the kind of person Kojima is... I'd say he opted for John Carpenter.

This has been bugging me since "PETER JACKSON MUST DIE!",... who do you consider the person worthy enough to direct the LoTR trilogy?

I have yet to see a fantasy genre that's not filled with campiness prior to LoTR.

Knowing the kind of person Kojima is... I'd say he opted for John Carpenter.

This has been bugging me since "PETER JACKSON MUST DIE!",... who do you consider the person worthy enough to direct the LoTR trilogy?

I have yet to see a fantasy genre that's not filled with campiness prior to LoTR.

Depends, after all, "Campiness" is relative.

13th Warrior was a good fantasy movie.
Clash of the Titans was a good movie for it's time.
and then there's the old Ray Harryhausen films
Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger
Jason and the Argonauts
1 Million years B.C. (yeah, campy now, but was cutting edge back then.)

Knowing the kind of person Kojima is... I'd say he opted for John Carpenter.

This has been bugging me since "PETER JACKSON MUST DIE!",... who do you consider the person worthy enough to direct the LoTR trilogy?

I have yet to see a fantasy genre that's not filled with campiness prior to LoTR.

Sam Raimi would have been a bad choice. I know he can do non-campy movies, but I just don't see him as a good fit.

Kenneth Brannaugh would have been interesting. I know that sounds strange, and granted he probably would never have been interested. I think he does a fantastic job bringing Shakespeare to the screen. I think he would have doen a good job adapting Tolkein. Special effects would have been inferior, but set design would have been superior. His casting would have been decent.

James Cameron might not have been a bad choice. But I do believe he would have opted for CGI too much. The movie possibly would have been a bit special effect heavy. I also don't think the casting would have been as good.

Terry Gilliam would have been a good choice. Average casting. Would have had more focus (probably) on the fantasy elements. We would have seen Tom Bombadil. Actually, he should direct the Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

The old, non-crazy George Lucas would have been cool. But you can't make a director good once he's gone down the path to assdom. So that's purely fansical.

Same for Speilburg. He's so on the downhill slide. Acutally old Speilburg/old Lucas collaboration would have been fantastic. Lucas directing and Speilburg producing.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I know I'm forgetting some.

Sam Raimi would have been a bad choice. I know he can do non-campy movies, but I just don't see him as a good fit.

Kenneth Brannaugh would have been interesting. I know that sounds strange, and granted he probably would never have been interested. I think he does a fantastic job bringing Shakespeare to the screen. I think he would have doen a good job adapting Tolkein. Special effects would have been inferior, but set design would have been superior. His casting would have been decent.

James Cameron might not have been a bad choice. But I do believe he would have opted for CGI too much. The movie possibly would have been a bit special effect heavy. I also don't think the casting would have been as good.

Terry Gilliam would have been a good choice. Average casting. Would have had more focus (probably) on the fantasy elements. We would have seen Tom Bombadil. Actually, he should direct the Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

The old, non-crazy George Lucas would have been cool. But you can't make a director good once he's gone down the path to assdom. So that's purely fansical.

Same for Speilburg. He's so on the downhill slide. Acutally old Speilburg/old Lucas collaboration would have been fantastic. Lucas directing and Speilburg producing.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I know I'm forgetting some.
I would think Speilburg/Lucas would make heavy use of CGI moreso than Cameron.

imagines Hobbit directed by Tim Burton...

I would think Speilburg/Lucas would make heavy use of CGI moreso than Cameron.

imagines Hobbit directed by Tim Burton...

Now they would. Back before they jumped the shark.

Producer sees twice the revenue.

QFT

Everything since Meet the Feebles has been downhill anyways.

I love Meet The Feebles. Maybe the 2nd half of The Hobbit will actually be Meet The Feebles 2?