[Weezer]

weak, very weak:

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1163993546.html

[lpkmckenna]

Thank god. I'd like at least 10 years to go by before The Hobbit comes to the screen.

[Weezer]

the article makes it seem like they will be rushing into production to take advantage of their content agreements.

[- - e r i k - -]

Wow. Sucks

[olePigeon]

Thank gods. Maybe someone competent will pick it up.

[- - e r i k - -]

Yeah. Like Uwe Boll or Bruckenheimer

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's the best news I've heard about the project so far.

greg

[TheWOAT]

I bet they will Ewokinate the movie.

[red rocket]

It was a pretty stupid book, anyway. They should let Takashi Miike or David Cronenberg do the adaptation, liven it up a bit.

I've had it with Jackson, King Kong was garbage.

[Hawkeye_a]

It's hard to top what he did with the trilogy....if he was trying to outdo himself with king kong. he failed. It's a sad prediciment cuase every movie he makes now will be compared tothe LOTR.

I loved the LOTR movies...i thought they were well adapted given the constraints (budget, timeframe, scope). it's easy to imagine what could be done better...but im still shocked at the level they accomplished.... truely a monumental accomplishment in movie making imo.

Of all of JRRT books, ive only read the Hobbit.... and i absolutely loved it. personally i hope this movie never makes it to the big screen, and people who want to know about it, pick up the book and read it.

Cheers

[SirCastor]

I enjoyed The trilogy. If Jackson can do something like that with the Hobbit, then I would be happy with it.

[Shaddim]

The tLotR films were, at their best, ok. However, at their worst, they were truly horrid. I know that Hollywood will butcher a book to "sex up" a story, but I was sickened by how much the movies differed from the books. Personally, I don't think P.J. has any business directing, producing, or even being on the set of a film such as this.

I remember leaving the theater after watching the first film, and a friend called (he was very excited) on my cell. he asked, "So, what did you think of LotR?!" and I replied, "I'll let you know when I've actually seen it". To say that I was disappointed is an understatement. Over time, I'll come to appreciate them for being an example of "epic filmmaking", but they'll never be The Lord of the Rings.

Personally, for a film such as The Hobbit, I'd trust Tim Burton more than P.J.. At least then I believe the atmosphere would be more true to the setting. Unlike tLotR, which is some pretty heavy literature, The Hobbit is more on the order of a fireside fairy tale. And that, is something that Burton would be able to deliver in spades.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Nice call on the Tim Burton! Now that I think about it, he probably would be a very, very good choice.

And, Fellowship of the Ring was IMO the best of the trilogy (although admittedly it's been a while since I've seen it). The rest were ridiculously overblown and badly conceived.

greg

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yeah. Like Uwe Boll or Bruckenheimer

If Uwe Boll had a $450 million budget, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

The tLotR films were, at their best, ok. However, at their worst, they were truly horrid. I know that Hollywood will butcher a book to "sex up" a story, but I was sickened by how much the movies differed from the books. Personally, I don't think P.J. has any business directing, producing, or even being on the set of a film such as this.

Someone else noticed. Overall the movies were just... bleh. They had some truely fantastic visual scenes and effects some of the time, other times you've seen better props on the original Dr. Who. He's an absolutely horrible director, completely linear in his abillities to tell people what to do.

They guy had almost half a billion dollars to make ONE film, and it came out mediocre. He should never be allowed to make another movie.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I enjoyed The trilogy. If Jackson can do something like that with the Hobbit, then I would be happy with it.

I can tell you exactly how the movie would be if Jackson did it:

All the dwarves would be bumbling idiots. It'd be like watching 20 Anakin Skywalkers from Episode I.
Every 20 minutes Bilbo would turn to the screen with a single tear down his cheek.
Kevin Costner would be cast as Gandalf.
1/2 the scenes with Smaug would be claymation or matted so horribly with the background you'd think he's a paper cutout.
Master Jedi Legolas would make a cameo just to kill Smaug while doing a half ganor and double twist.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I loved the LOTR movies...i thought they were well adapted given the constraints (budget, timeframe, scope). it's easy to imagine what could be done better...but im still shocked at the level they accomplished.... truely a monumental accomplishment in movie making imo.

$450 MILLION! For ONE movie! How is that a constraint?!

With that amount of money, I think I could afford a little better post production so half the hobbits weren't ice skating across granite.

[nbnz]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

$450 MILLION! For ONE movie! How is that a constraint?!

With that amount of money, I think I could afford a little better post production so half the hobbits weren't ice skating across granite.

You mean the three movies that cost $281 million total and grossed $2917 million worldwide? Yeah I'm sure you could have done a better job.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by nbnz 

You mean the three movies that cost $281 million total and grossed $2917 million worldwide? Yeah I'm sure you could have done a better job.

It was big budget, typical Hollywood tripe, of course it made lots of $$. All they did was cash in on the most valuable property that hadn't been completely exploited (and then came Narnia, which was a superior film).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

(and then came Narnia, which was a superior film).

Can't support you there. Narnia was fine, but any of the 3 LotR films were better.

Frankly, I'm still waiting for a fantasy movie that isn't fundamentally flawed. Fingers crossed for Eragon, I guess.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

It was big budget, typical Hollywood tripe, of course it made lots of $$. All they did was cash in on the most valuable property that hadn't been completely exploited (and then came Narnia, which was a superior film).

Ugh. I felt Narnia was rubbish. My girlfriend and I both left quite disappointed, and we were both severly criticizing nearly all the effects with the exception of some of the scenes with Aslan. I thought the effects in that film were worse than most films from the early 90s, while the only enjoyable character was the White Witch.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by nbnz 

You mean the three movies that cost $281 million total and grossed $2917 million worldwide? Yeah I'm sure you could have done a better job.

Even Water World eventually made money.

Production costs for the LOTR movies was $430 million. I messed up, I read $450 for Fellowship only. That's still an insane amount of money.

A lot of people wanted a good film to be made from the books, so a lot of people saw it. That doesn't mean it was a good movie. Casting, directing, producing, and effects were abysmal.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise 

Ugh. I felt Narnia was rubbish. My girlfriend and I both left quite disappointed, and we were both severly criticizing nearly all the effects with the exception of some of the scenes with Aslan. I thought the effects in that film were worse than most films from the early 90s, while the only enjoyable character was the White Witch.

I wasn't grading solely on effects, the overall film was superior.

However, speaking of effects, tLotR was ghastly.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise 

Ugh. I felt Narnia was rubbish. My girlfriend and I both left quite disappointed, and we were both severly criticizing nearly all the effects with the exception of some of the scenes with Aslan. I thought the effects in that film were worse than most films from the early 90s, while the only enjoyable character was the White Witch.

It was about on par with Lord of the Rings. I agree, though, I loved the White Witch. She was the only reason to see the movie.

The problem I had was the actors still seemed to be acting for theatre. Not much screen presence or experience. It was like watching miniature William Shatners.

[mitchell_pgh]

Please, please, please pick Joel Schumacher.

Nothing kills a film like Schumacher...

[andreas_g4]

I vote for Mel Gibson™.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

I remember leaving the theater after watching the first film, and a friend called (he was very excited) on my cell. he asked, "So, what did you think of LotR?!" and I replied, "I'll let you know when I've actually seen it".

If you think Lord of the Rings differed too much from the books, nothing remotely marketable would have worked for you.

When books get turned into movies, things get changed — because books and movies are different media, and what works in one does not necessarily work in the other. Peter Jackson actually stuck fairly close to the book for the kind of movie he was making. For instance, when Orson Scott Card wrote a draft of the movie script for his book Ender's Game, he changed a lot more than Peter Jackson did from Lord of the Rings, just because he found that what works on the page doesn't translate to the screen.

Beyond that, I think a lot of people forget that their interpretations of the characters are not canon. You imagine Legolas and Frodo being a certain way, but I might get a somewhat different image of them. Peter Jackson has his, and just because it's different from yours doesn't mean it's wrong. You can be unhappy with it, but I don't think it's fair to fault people for picturing it differently. That's one of the things that makes adapting to the screen so tricky — you literally can't please everyone.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Please, please, please pick Joel Schumacher.

Nothing kills a film like Schumacher...

[Shaddim]

They completely changed the story! Arwen had no part in the books beyond her bit part in Rivendell and the wedding, that's it. I suppose the "forced" love story is what irritated me the most (along with completely omitting Tom Bombadil and the cleansing of the Shire). But there were so many small things, that it destroyed the flavor of the books. THAT wasn't neccessary, that was the work of Peter Jackson.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Card and Ender's Game, it was a good read, but it has no where near the cultural signifigance of tLotR. Tolkien's readership and fanbase alone were >10x larger than Card's before the movies were ever released.

[zerock]

Peter Jackson blows!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

They completely changed the story! Arwen had no part in the books beyond her bit part in Rivendell and the wedding, that's it. I suppose the "forced" love story is what irritated me the most (along with completely omitting Tom Bombadil and the cleansing of the Shire). But there were so many small things, that it destroyed the flavor of the books. THAT wasn't neccessary, that was the work of Peter Jackson.

I agree, I didn't like that bit either. But quite frankly, it was such a small part of the movies too that it really didn't bother me much in the grand scheme of things. There's a whole lot more that could have gone wrong. (Look at the '70s cartoon for proof!)

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Personally, I couldn't care less about Card and Ender's Game, it was a good read, but it has no where near the cultural signifigance of tLotR. Tolkien's readership and fanbase alone were >10x larger than Card's before the movies were ever released.

Well, yeah, but the popularity of the book is irrelevant. The point is just the difference between books and movies.

What makes a book work isn't necessarily the same thing that will make a movie work. If you don't change anything from the book, you'll appeal to people who really should just have been reading the book another time, but people watching it as a movie probably won't enjoy it.

[Dakar²]

SAURON in THE LORD OF THE RINGS
Such an epic story deserves an epic villain, but instead of an all-powerful, ****-kicking overlord, the citizens of Middle-Earth lived in fear of what basically amounted to a pissed off lighthouse. With his earthly form chopped down to size after a nasty cut on the fingers, Sauron is reduced to appearing as a giant, sore-looking eyeball at the top of a tower, which kinda makes it hard to be truly evil, aside from a few disapproving glares here and there. Ooh, we’re so scared Mr. Sauron - what are you going to do, look at us funny? Poor Sauron might have the coolest armies at his disposal, but it’s a shame he wasn’t blessed with any common sense: putting at least a couple of guards outside the entrance to Mount Doom might have saved him a whole lot of silly bother. Any self-respecting villain would have spotted that: maybe he should have gone to Specsavers.

Ultimate act of lameness: Brought crashing down by North and Mikey from The Goonies.

I dunno, it just felt appropriate with everyone sniping the movies.

[::maroma::]

Just throwing this in...

I never read the books. Yet I thoroughly enjoyed the movies. I found very little that I disliked about them.

I find that almost every single complaint I've ever heard about the movies has to do with how the movies related to the books. That's all fine and dandy, but I tend to agree with Chuckit that when adapting a book to the big screen, there will always be discrepancies, differences and things that aren't interpreted as someone else might have interpreted them. Its when people expect the movie to be exactly the same as they felt the book(s) to be that people get annoyed. In my opinion, Peter Jackson didn't "ruin" LotR movies, he merely put on screen what he interpreted the story to be. Of course he had to go within the constraints of the film media and format, which also had a hand in changing some of the details.

But anyways, I just wanted to give a perspective of someone who's never read the books. I loved the movies. There are few films that stand up to them for me. I think Peter Jackson is incredibly talented and I think he did a superb job with LotR films.

[Shaddim]

The movies could have been made without completely changing the story. What Jackson did was the equivalent of placing Weirding modules in Dune (but at least Lynch had some style). PJ chose to ham-handedly revise Tolkien, probably the greatest author of that genre... and I just find that sad.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

They completely changed the story! Arwen had no part in the books beyond her bit part in Rivendell and the wedding, that's it. I suppose the "forced" love story is what irritated me the most (along with completely omitting Tom Bombadil and the cleansing of the Shire). But there were so many small things, that it destroyed the flavor of the books. THAT wasn't neccessary, that was the work of Peter Jackson.

Personally, I couldn't care less about Card and Ender's Game, it was a good read, but it has no where near the cultural signifigance of tLotR. Tolkien's readership and fanbase alone were >10x larger than Card's before the movies were ever released.

Don't forget portraying Gimli, not as an impressive warrior with skills ummatched with an axe that outshined even the legendary Legolas at the Battle of Helm's Deep, but as a bumbling idiot.

Orson Card, by the way, really wants Joss Whedon to do Ender's Game. I hope he does.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ::maroma:: 

I find that almost every single complaint I've ever heard about the movies has to do with how the movies related to the books.

You completely missed my complaints, then.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You completely missed my complaints, then.

And you completely missed the world "almost".

[Person Man]

You know, there are people who like both the books and the movies.

I did. In my case, I first read the books when I was 13. Got through The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in 3 weeks (I was on vacation in Greece at the time... otherwise it would have taken me 3 days).

Then I saw the movies. I liked all three of them. As movies. I like the books as books.

I've read the books a few times more because of the movies.

Yes, there are a few things that I didn't like about the movies. But, as a lover of the books yourself, you have to admit that there have been quite a few people who, after seeing the movies, then went out and bought the books.

My best friend, for one thing. He liked the books better than the movies. I like the books better than the movies, but I don't hate the movies. I enjoyed the movies.

My father liked the books better than the movies, but he liked the movies, too. In fact, if not for the movies, he would have NEVER read the books. (Getting the Greek translations of the books for him to read was the interesting part... and you know what? The translations actually did Tolkien justice. They did a great job with his writing style. And that's hard to do when translating anything complex. And Tolkien's writing style is one that I imagine would be even harder to translate properly).

[ink]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

You know, there are people who like both the books and the movies.

Hmmm.

I loved "The Two Towers" in the books, but I thought the films were just... OK. The Fellowship of the Rings was good, but the others were ... meh.

Jackson spent WAY too much time on Denethor, and his salad. Maybe he had some issues with his dad?!?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ink 

Jackson spent WAY too much time on Denethor, and his salad. Maybe he had some issues with his dad?!?

Well, my father and I were like, "WTF?" on that part too.

I especially liked the part where the cherry tomato squirts on his chin when he bites into it. Slob.

[- - e r i k - -]

Most of your complaints - and in any case where "I love the book(s), how could you have ruined it so!1!" - stems from a complete lack of understanding of adaptation.

[ink]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Most of your complaints - and in any case where "I love the book(s), how could you have ruined it so!1!" - stems from a complete lack of understanding of adaptation.

Complete?

Couldn't it just be a partial misunderstanding?

After all, one shouldn't complain about Jackson...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Most of your complaints - and in any case where "I love the book(s), how could you have ruined it so!1!" - stems from a complete lack of understanding of adaptation.

I understand the tradeoffs involved, which is why I can reconcile my liking the movies with my liking the books.

But some people are just like what you described above. But there's no need for them to rain on my parade.

[- - e r i k - -]

One is free to criticize rationally. But in no way, shape or form did Peter Jackson "ruin" the books. I didn't like the way Gimli was portrayed, and some of the elf-stunts were overdone (no matter how big of a roar of applause it caused in the theatre), but I don't go hijacking every thread remotely related to LOTR to cry about how Peter Jackson ruined my childhood either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

One is free to criticize rationally. But in no way, shape or form did Peter Jackson "ruin" the books. I didn't like the way Gimli was portrayed, and some of the elf-stunts were overdone (no matter how big of a roar of applause it caused in the theatre), but I don't go hijacking every thread remotely related to LOTR to cry about how Peter Jackson ruined my childhood either.

Strawman.

I didn't say he ruined the books, I said he ruined the story in the movie.

The movies were, for the most part, lame. There were a few moments of "Ooooo" and "Aaaaaa", but overall, they were pathetic. Especially considering the resources and choices available. The fact that you, and others like you, loved them so much is clear evidence that you simply have no taste... like the rest of the blockbuster loving suckups.


I will give the makers one accolade, the casting of Mortensen and McKellen was spot-on, their performances were very good. Otherwise, the entire series gets a big, fat, "Meh".

[SirCastor]

This thread reminds me of the Bill Gates/Microsoft rhetoric that flies around here often (or used to). We like to blame people, and Peter Jackson, although heavily involved (obviously) Is not the sole person responsible for the Films. Those films represent literally hundreds and hundreds of people. Possibly thousands. You can't pick out Peter Jackson and say "This is all his fault! He's the worst guy ever!"

I enjoyed the movies. Why? How could I possibly enjoy them? Because I didn't go in expecting the books. If I did, I imagine that I would be annoyed too. But then, I didn't go expecting the book when I saw Jurassic Park, and that was a great film. (perhaps not great in terms of great, paradigm altering film, but truly enjoyable.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

I will give the makers one accolade, the casting of Mortensen and McKellen was spot-on, their performances were very good. Otherwise, the entire series gets a big, fat, "Meh".

Don't leave out Sean Austin. Poor guy. He had to carry Elijah Wood for 3 movies. He should've gotten a honorary Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the next 3 years just for having to share the screen with that tool. It was like watching Kenneth Branagh and Kevin Costner having a Shakespere contest.

I'm also a sucker for Cate Blanchett.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Strawman.

I didn't say he ruined the books, I said he ruined the story in the movie.

The movies were, for the most part, lame. There were a few moments of "Ooooo" and "Aaaaaa", but overall, they were pathetic. Especially considering the resources and choices available. The fact that you, and others like you, loved them so much is clear evidence that you simply have no taste... like the rest of the blockbuster loving suckups.

Projection.

You don't know anything about my tastes.

I avoid blockbusters like the plague unless they have some merit to them. In fact I have a very discerning taste in movies, the kind you only get from writing them yourself.

My point still stands: People who decry movies that are adapted from their (favourite) books (plays/shorts), no matter how good it's objective qualities (acting, script, production and especially in this case adaptation) are, they will always have a problem with it for psychological factors: It simply wasn't what they imagined it to be.

I have no problems pointing out the minor quibbles I have with the movies, but as a whole the movies stand as the definitive epic trilogy of our generation, much like the original Star Wars did. And boy do I have nits to pick with that one

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Don't leave out Sean Austin. Poor guy. He had to carry Elijah Wood for 3 movies. He should've gotten a honorary Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the next 3 years just for having to share the screen with that tool.

Read Sean Astin's autobiography then decide who's the tool.

[Cipher13]

You're all far too critical, I think. I actually feel sorry for you, as that criticality has ruined for you what I consider to be the best movies I've ever seen.

I thoroughly enjoyed all three, and yes, I have read the books.

Concerning book-to-movie adaptations, the books are always better, of course. Far more depth is allowed in a book, as it is read in many sittings, not one (length is far less of an issue); scenes are described by the author (at the author's discretion), not interpreted by the observer (at the observer's discretion); not everything takes place in first-person dialog.

You're kidding yourself if you expected the movies to be as good as the books - that's only possible when adapting a mediocre book.

Enjoy the movies for what they are, and the entertainment they provide (that is their purpose, is it not?). I still think they're bloody excellent, despite all they left out.

I'm sure cutting those scenes/characters was a tough decision for Jackson, but I think he chose very well which to exclude.

You also need to remember, this was a job for him, and the movies had to appeal to everyone, not only hardcore LOTR fans, hence some of the "fluffier" elements of the movie (Arwen).

Anyway... jeez, just watch the damn movie, relax, and be glad Verhoeven didn't have anything to do with it.

PS. I am not a Jackson fanboy... King Kong sucked.