IFEMaster
Topic Author
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:52 am

Because of the ongoing dispute between New Line Cinema (production company for The Lord of The Rings trilogy) and Peter Jackson (director of The Lord of The Rings trilogy), Jackson will not be directing the prequel to the trilogy, 'The Hobbit'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6167972.stm

Fair use excerpt:

Quote:
Jackson, a devoted Tolkien fan, said he had been removed from the Hobbit project by New Line, who also hold the rights to a second Lord of the Rings prequel.

The Oscar-winning director said New Line would not allow him to make the films unless he dropped the lawsuit.

Does anyone else feel that this is a bad move on the part of New Line? Jackson's vision, creativity, and ideas are what caused TLOTR trilogy to explode. As a fan of that trilogy, I'm concerned now that The Hobbit, and whatever the other prequel is, will be too disconnected from TLOTR.

New Line are out of order on this one in my opinion. They need to settle the case with Jackson and get on with making a blockbuster Hobbit movie, instead of playing silly buggers and making a bad marketing and bad artistic move like this.

Your thoughts?
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
eatmybologna
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:02 am

Well,

I've heard that Clint Eastwood is available and is a good director.


 Smile
Isn't knowledge more than just the acquisition of information? Shouldn't the acquired information be correct?
 
IFEMaster
Topic Author
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:16 am

Quoting Eatmybologna (Reply 1):
I've heard that Clint Eastwood is available and is a good director.

FFS. It would end up being a lame movie like that 'Right Stuff' film he did a few years ago.
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13246
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:23 am

I thought the Jackson in the thread title was Michael. rotfl 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:25 am

New Line wanted a film under 3 hours.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
andz
Posts: 7624
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:49 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:39 am

I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made.
After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:47 am

While I have no idea whether or not it was reasonable to sue New Line, I can see why New Line is not willing to further collaborate with a director they consider sue-happy.
I support the right to arm bears
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:22 am

The Lord of the Rings trilogy had to be among the most over-rated films ever. I reckon they were a case of The Emperor´s New Clothes. Over-acted, over hyped and over-rated, they were the biggest cinema disappointment ever. The characters, apart from Gollum, Sam Gamgee and the Ents, had no depth to them at all, and I couldn´t have cared less whether any of them, apart from the above, lived or died.

The Hobbit is a much more down to earth book than LOTR. Hopefully whoever directs it will avoid the style of LOTR.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:38 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 7):

Man, there are about a billion geeks in this world and I think they would all kill you in very imaginative and horribly creative ways if they heard you. Fortunately, Geeks don't hang out here...

Wait an minute...

Dude I'd find a play to hide...soon.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:42 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8):
Man, there are about a billion geeks in this world and I think they would all kill you in very imaginative and horribly creative ways if they heard you

Bring on the Orcs . . .
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:42 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 7):
The Lord of the Rings trilogy had to be among the most over-rated films ever. I reckon they were a case of The Emperor´s New Clothes. Over-acted, over hyped and over-rated, they were the biggest cinema disappointment ever. The characters, apart from Gollum, Sam Gamgee and the Ents, had no depth to them at all, and I couldn´t have cared less whether any of them, apart from the above, lived or died.

I could almost guarantee yours is decidedly a minority opinion. The staggering worldwide financial success of the trilogy, as well as "The Return Of The King"'s 2004 Oscar sweep, unprecedented for a fantasy film, a genre the Academy has traditionally shunned, UTTERLY discredit your exceedingly myopic assessment. The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history and will still be revered fifty years from now. I'd avoided it in the theaters, thinking then it was just another entry in the tired sword & sorcery genre. Once I'd finally caught it on DVD, I realized how wrong I was. Thanks to Peter Jackson's incomparable skill, it transcends its supposed sword & sorcery label with a beguiling mix of great drama, adventure and pathos, bringing wonder, joy and tears to a grand spectacle. You also couldn't be more wrong about the other characters, all were written and performed with exceptional skill. You're entitled to your opinion but it's truly sad you can't see the greatness in this fabulous work, especially when someone like I so initially biased against seeing it, given its "Olden Times" style, has been totally converted into a huge fan. Jackson is a true master of cinema, right up there with Spielberg. It's truly a shame that he and New Line couldn't come to terms on "The Hobbit". I can practically also guarantee that new film won't be nearly as good or as successful without his direction.
 
kiwiinoz
Posts: 1999
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:07 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:39 pm

Quoting IFEMaster (Thread starter):
As a fan of that trilogy, I'm concerned now that The Hobbit, and whatever the other prequel is, will be too disconnected from TLOTR.

I don't think it's too much of an issue. Jackson did a good job, but I doubt whether alternative interpretations will fall out of step much with the LOTR trilogy. The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:53 pm

Whilst I enjoyed the films, some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad.

There was too much artistic licence with huge differences to the book, completely changing some characters and the sequence of events.

The Hobbit was a book that really sucked you in so that you were part of the journey. A film would have to be very good to re-create that feeling.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:28 pm

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
The staggering worldwide financial success of the trilogy, as well as "The Return Of The King"'s 2004 Oscar sweep, unprecedented for a fantasy film, a genre the Academy has traditionally shunned, UTTERLY discredit your exceedingly myopic assessment. The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history and will still be revered fifty years from now

Box-office returns are no indication of artistic mertit, neither are Oscar wins, and, if you happen to think so, this UTTERLY discredits YOUR exceedingly myopic assessment.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
You're entitled to your opinion but it's truly sad you can't see the greatness in this fabulous work

The film was a travesty of the book. The book was a series of episodic adventures, each a tale in itself, in which the characters were fleshed-out and given depth. The films turned a masterpiece into a Hollywood blockbuster, strong on visual effects (I give them full marks for that) but populated with cloned cardboard characters (apart from the handful I´ve mentioned) with no personality or depth whatsoever.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
Whilst I enjoyed the films, some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad

That bug-eyed "caught-in-the-headlamps" look he affected throughout the entire three films made me want to punch him in the face.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
There was too much artistic licence with huge differences to the book, completely changing some characters and the sequence of events

You and I saw the same films, Saintsman, something I think a lot of other people didn´t.

In all fairness, you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it. If LOTR were to be done properly, it would be as a series of hour-long TV episodes, which would give the viewer the sense of time involved in the series of adventures, something the films did not.

The test of a good film is whether you´d want to see it again. I´d walk backwards over hot coals before having to sit through any of them a second time.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:50 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
In all fairness, you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it. If LOTR were to be done properly, it would be as a series of hour-long TV episodes, which would give the viewer the sense of time involved in the series of adventures, something the films did not.

Having read the books multiple times and seen the film multiple times I have to disagree with everything you've said on this subject.

You've got to be one of those who are aghast at the missing Tom Bombadil episode, or some of the other minor scenes in the books that where left out.

Your right in order to make a film even one of the length of LOTR the books had to be pared down. Those episodes are just DULL. They don't advance the plot. Even breaking LOTR into separate hour long TV episodes won't change that. What you'd get would be episodes you could safely skip without losing the narrative thread.

I thought LOTR was the perfect blend of Sweeping Epic and intimate introspection that the books were. Jackson made some choices that frankly surprised me but on the whole the Movies work VERY well, and stand up with the books proudly.

Jackson as a director, lost me with King Long... I'm sorry, Kong. His over indulgence in getting everything he wanted in, worked with something as dense as LOTR. But King Kong was a cheap B MONSTER movie of the 1930s. It was meant as children's entertainment! It took a frickin' hour of screen time just to get the frickin' island for Christ sakes. I was so bored until they FINALLY got the ape to New York.

So I'm glad Jackson lost the Hobbit. I think he really needs to sit back and rethink his craft.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
IFEMaster
Topic Author
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:36 am

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
I could almost guarantee yours is decidedly a minority opinion.

 checkmark 

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
The LOTR trilogy is one of the most remarkable achievements in film history

Again,  checkmark  I can't think of another trilogy, with the exception of the original Star Wars movies, that broke so much ground in visual effects and fantasy adaptation.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 10):
Jackson is a true master of cinema, right up there with Spielberg.

And again,  checkmark  The fact that Jackson won't be involved in The Hobbit is going to let the movie down. His vision and creativity, as displayed in LOTR and other movies he's done, show that he knows exactly how to communicate his artistic interpretation of a story or scene. There are way too many directors out there who are just Media School lovies who see it as a job and not a passion.

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 11):
The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.

I don't know that I agree with this. While there would be no movie without the story, the director's interpretation is what creates the quality of the story telling, as such, I think the story and it's directive interpretation are on par with each other.

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 12):
some of the acting was awful. Frodo being particularly bad

 checkmark  The only bad acting in the entire movie, and it happens to come from the lead. Funny story though...I went to see The White Stripes at LA's Greek Theater a couple of years ago, and Elijah Wood was there. He is very small and looks incredibly pretty and effeminate. Just as the lights were coming down, some kid spotted him and shouts "Mr. Frodo! Mr. Frodo!" in an accent just like Samwise  Smile

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
neither are Oscar wins

Absolute BS. Oscar's are nominated and decided by artistic peers; the people who make movies and act in movies and write movies. They do what they do because they are good at it, and I would hazard a guess by saying that they know more of what they talk about than you do. An Oscar win is absolutely an indication of artistic merit.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
The film was a travesty of the book. The book was a series of episodic adventures, each a tale in itself, in which the characters were fleshed-out and given depth. The films turned a masterpiece into a Hollywood blockbuster, strong on visual effects (I give them full marks for that) but populated with cloned cardboard characters (apart from the handful I´ve mentioned) with no personality or depth whatsoever.

There's no possible way that any director could explore the complexities and depth of each character in 3 movies lasting 3 hours. I would suggest you watch the extended edition DVDs, there is a more character exploration, but at 4 hours per movie, it's just not viable for a theatrical release. Given the objective - tell the story, tell it well, captivate the audience, and show us some FX magic - I think New Line and Jackson did an amazing job.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
you CANNOT make three three-hour films of a book that length without losing most of it

Bingo. So surely you understand that, with that point of view in mind, LOTR trilogy was never going to explore the touchy-feely depth of each character that you desire?
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:19 am

The LOTR was great.
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set.. *me* Big grin
I doubt this is true... its just sword swashling from new line...it wouldnt be the same without jackson, walsh and co, and of course weta studios.
didn't know there was 2 prequels... I did hear they wanted to split the hobbit into 2 tho.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:30 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set..

*Hand up*

Looking forward to the film, as I still have not gotten 'round to reading the book...  scared 

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting Andz (Reply 5):
I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made.

Philistine!  Wink

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 11):
The story/fantasy is the real quality of this type of movie, the director's interpretation is secondary.

There was something extra concerning LOTR. Passion.

Jackson is a LOTR fanatic. He loved the books since he was a kid, and spent a whole decade working on converting his beloved passion into a film (or series of films) that would do justice in the eyes of fans - because he himself is a fan.

Unlike the Harry Potter series, whose books were meant for kids, LOTR is a sophisticated universe with fans who would not tolerate a superficial transfer.

For a Harry Potter film, you can hire a decent director and get a decent film. But even if New Line hires Steven Spielberg to direct The Hobbit, it will not be nearly as good as if Jackson did it (assuming that Spielberg is not as much of a fan of the books as Jackson is.)
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
IFEMaster
Topic Author
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:36 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Hands up those with the extended edition boxed set

*hand up* Got it from the missus for Christmas a couple of years ago.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
I doubt this is true... its just sword swashling from new line...

I dunno. I think that Jackson's company may have burned their bridge with New Line. Great shame.
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:53 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 14):
You've got to be one of those who are aghast at the missing Tom Bombadil episode, or some of the other minor scenes in the books that where left out.

It´s a long time since I read the book, but I remember Tom being a central character in the beginning. What was the point in leaving him out? You either make a film of Lord of the Rings or you do not.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 14):
Those episodes are just DULL. They don't advance the plot.

Couldn´t disagree more. LOTR is more than just a plot centred on the fate of the ring: it is the interaction between the characters and their dialogue and diversions along the way. THAT is what the book was to me, NOT a battle of good vs evil, nor a metaphor for World War 2, which some people thought it was. Tolkein wrote it partly as an attempt to re-create British folklore, a lot of which he belived had been lost over the centuries. THAT is what the book meant to me, so while you may have found these parts of it dull and boring, people like myself did not.

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 15):
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
neither are Oscar wins

Absolute BS. Oscar's are nominated and decided by artistic peers; the people who make movies and act in movies and write movies

While most Oscar-winning films would be of a certain standard, the awards themselves are often just a case of Hollywood patting itself on the back. Most winners are undoubtably good films, but each year any good film critic would have a list of others far more worthy of the award.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:06 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
I remember Tom being a central character in the beginning. What was the point in leaving him out?

No, Tom was not central to the action.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
LOTR is more than just a plot centred on the fate of the ring: it is the interaction between the characters and their dialogue and diversions along the way. THAT is what the book was to me,

Because it's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM! Books can be character based and introspective because they are unique in allowing the reader to read the THOUGHTS of the characters. Film and TV are VISUAL. Therefore PLOT-centric. Introspection leads to long boring scenes or annoying voice over. A prime example: David Lynch's Dune. On the other hand a more plot oriented version in miniseries format was SciFi's Dune and it was much better.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 20):
THAT is what the book meant to me, so while you may have found these parts of it dull and boring, people like myself did not.

No, I didn't think those parts were boring within the books. However, had they been made part of the film they would have been. You want the Book READ THE FRICKING BOOK. A movie is just different.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
pacificjourney
Posts: 2659
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:12 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:38 am

I can see Mt.Doom (Ngarahoe) out of my window.
" Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
No, Tom was not central to the action.

He was a character in the beginning of the book. There was no reason at all to leave him out. Like I said, you either make a film of Lord of the Rings or you don´t.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
Because it's a DIFFERENT MEDIUM! Books can be character based and introspective because they are unique in allowing the reader to read the THOUGHTS of the characters. Film and TV are VISUAL. Therefore PLOT-centric. Introspection leads to long boring scenes or annoying voice over

Are you saying there are no character-based films? Film and TV are visual, as you say, but there are many which explore the characters´ depth. These are much more appealing to me than visual blockbusters, which is why I thought LOTR (the films) were so dull.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 21):
You want the Book READ THE FRICKING BOOK. A movie is just different.

I really think LOTR is an impossible book to film properly. It had been tried in the 80s and was a disaster. You cannot turn a 1,000 page book into a one hour film, nor three three hour ones, and I don´t care whether you talk about the direcor´s cut or not. The reason the Jackson trilogy was so successful was because of the visual effects, the way Titanic and other recent blockbusters were. Other than this, and I have to admit the films WERE visually stunning, they had no artistic merit whatsoever.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:26 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 23):

Your whole argument is ridiculous.

First, have you EVER SEEN a movie based on a book where everything that was in the book happened in the movie?

Please name one.

Hell, they don't even do Shakespeare word for word and scene for scene.

You have a complete misunderstanding of Film and TV versus literature.

You can have a film based on character but VISUAL stuff has to happen to them. you can NOT have an introspective film. Not without making a REALLY visually boring film.

You think LOTR was impossible to film. Fine. Peter Jackson proved you wrong. The films ARE by the vast majority of people as close to the books as possible with film. You are in a distinct minority. I think you probably like it that way.

Your last line was a load of BS. The visual effects made the movie possible simple because of the SCOPE of the story. They were faithful to the story themes and language of the books and I like most people think they are very artistically worthy.

I get the distinct impression you simply don't like them because they are popular, and nothing popular could EVER be artistic. Take that Bohemian attitude and stick it.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:51 pm

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 24):
First, have you EVER SEEN a movie based on a book where everything that was in the book happened in the movie?

Please name one.

I can name two off the top of my head, both Neil Jordan films and one of them, Breakfast on Pluto was actually BETTER than the book. The author gave Jordan full permission to do what he wanted. Jordan expanded on the book, added more characters and storyline and made the main character more likeable. It worked a treat. The author, Patrick McCabe, was pleased with the result.

The other, also written by Patrick McCabe and filmed by Jordan, is The Butcher Boy, which was faithful to the book and also an excellent film. Good enough for the film critic of Time Magazine in the US to list it as one of his ten favourite films of 1999.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 24):
You are in a distinct minority. I think you probably like it that way.

´
Possibly, on the first point, but not alone. If this topic comes up in conversation, even with people who say they liked the film, a lot are prepared to admit that the characters lacked depth and the acting was poor, except in the case of Gollum, Gandalf, and possibly Sam Gamgee and Aragorn. You are the first person I´ve come across to argue the greatness of the film. So your opionion is possibly a minority one too.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 24):
I get the distinct impression you simply don't like them because they are popular, and nothing popular could EVER be artistic. Take that Bohemian attitude and stick it.

Nope, I LOVED Titanic, one of the most popular films ever made, depsite the fact that the storyline was cheesy and far-fetched. The authenticity of the ship, plus the special effects, dragged me back to see it a few times. And I´d gladly watch it again, something I couldn´t imagine myself doing with any of the Rings films.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 24):
Take that Bohemian attitude and stick it.

Have I hit a nerve here?

If it helps to cheer you up, I have to say that Jackson´s interpretation of the Ring Wraiths was, in my opinion, superb. AND better than in the book: they were truly sinister, and the embodiment of evil.

That cheer you up?
 
MYT332
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:41 pm

Quoting Andz (Reply 5):
I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made

Oh me too, I realy can't stand these films, pure crap in my opinion. I'd rather watch a romantic comedy, yes I said it, that's how crap I think LOTR is!

I read The Hobit in school when I was about 10 and found that dull too so I'm not fussed what happens.
One Life, Live it.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:42 pm

Quoting Pacificjourney (Reply 22):
I can see Mt.Doom (Ngarahoe) out of my window.

Yeah I drive past several times a year...
Have climbed it before too... lots of fun... is all fine scoria, run down it jumping and its like your on the moon or something!  Smile

There is now a petition that has been made demanding that New Line Cinema backs down and allows Peter Jackson to direct The Hobbit.

http://www.petitiononline.com/hobnow/petition.html

Please click that link only takes a few seconds and hopefully The Hobbit can be made to its full glory in line with the LOTR series.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:34 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 25):
If this topic comes up in conversation, even with people who say they liked the film, a lot are prepared to admit that the characters lacked depth and the acting was poor, except in the case of Gollum, Gandalf, and possibly Sam Gamgee and Aragorn. You are the first person I´ve come across to argue the greatness of the film.

I liked the films a lot. Don't think for one second that I think they are the greatest films ever.

I can point out flaws in them, especially the never ending endings in Return of the King.

I don't see anything truly bad about the writing or the acting. Unlike Titanic that you keep mentioning where every performance is rather wooden, and we get bludgeoned by this class warfare message that Cameron had. His writing is about as subtle as a brick. I guess he wanted to make sure he got his message through to the pre-teen girls who were his audience.

LOTR's is a fine adaptation of existing material. Nothing translates exactly to the screen. Not Fight Club, not Gone with the Wind, or Exodus, or Hunt for Red October, or Naked Lunch. They all have to be interpreted for the screen.

On the other had I am firmly in Randal Graves Camp from Clerks II. Star Wars IS the trilogy to watch, LOTR is enjoyable and well done, but doesn't beat Star Wars.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:17 am

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 28):
Star Wars IS the trilogy to watch, LOTR is enjoyable and well done, but doesn't beat Star Wars.

Oh well. We REALLY are in different camps here. After the second Star Wars in 19-whatever I´d had enough.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 28):
Unlike Titanic that you keep mentioning where every performance is rather wooden, and we get bludgeoned by this class warfare message that Cameron had. His writing is about as subtle as a brick

I wouldn´t consider Titanic to be worthy of it´s Best Picture Oscar. One for special effects yes, but best picture no. A film doesn´t have to be an Oscar winner to be enjoyable, which I found it, but then the star of the film was the ship and I lost interest after it sunk. Di Caprio is not a bad little actor and he played his part admirably, and none of the cast were as wooden as most in the Rings trilogy.

I understand your point earlier about books and films being different media, and, like you say, it is almost impossible to find a film completely faithful to the book. When you read something like Lord of the Rings, which does draw heavily on the imagination, I think it´s very likely that people will be disappointed.

Jackson made an admirable attempt at Lothlórien, but an idyllic land like that should really only exist in your imagination. Any pictorial or visual depiction of it is inevitably bound to disappoint.
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:44 am

Bummer grande.

Dunno if I should be upset with New Line or PJ...

either way the film is gonna be made, with or without PJ onboard directing.

Suggestions for replacements?

I heard JJ Abrams was in the mix now...

Cheers and Happy Turkey day.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:06 am

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 26):
Quoting Andz (Reply 5):
I fell asleep during the first LOTR and didn't bother going to see the others. I won't lose any sleep if another isn't made

Oh me too, I realy can't stand these films, pure crap in my opinion. I'd rather watch a romantic comedy, yes I said it, that's how crap I think LOTR is!

You have no soul. LOTR is a cinematic masterpiece, for it's sheer scale and imagination, and the courage it took to make it. Yes, there were reasons why none of the actors won an Academy Award - there were some excellent performances, but the films were too big to allow any acting performance to have any impact.

The point was not the acting, but the re-telling of a famous and beloved story that had already created and nourished its own myth for 40 years. Telling that story in a way that embellished the myth, and paid detailed and reverent homage to the story within the book, while avoiding the pitfalls of Tolkiens encylopaedic but astonishingly tedious and over-academic writing style was in itself a work of art. I mean, let's be honest, it's a lovely book, but it takes REAL determination to make it through the first 200 pages.

I love all three films, I have the extended DVDs of all three, Jackson absolutely deserved the Oscar sweep he got, and he is the ONLY person to whom the filming of the Hobbit can safely be entrusted. Whoever ends up making it will inevitably be compared to Jackson's trilogy, and will inevitably suffer in the comparison.

Bray, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but on this one you're missing the point.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
aaflt1871
Posts: 2166
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:29 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:35 am

I say let George Lucas have a go at it.
Where did everybody go?
 
bill142
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:47 am

Quoting IFEMaster (Reply 2):

FFS. It would end up being a lame movie like that 'Right Stuff' film he did a few years ago

Or the bridges of madison county
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:00 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
but it takes REAL determination to make it through the first 200 pages.

Tell that to everyone who has read it from cover to cover!

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
Yes, there were reasons why none of the actors won an Academy Award - there were some excellent performances,

Pray tell, JGPH1A, pray tell.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
I love all three films, I have the extended DVDs of all three,



Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 31):
Bray, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but on this one you're missing the point.

Each to their own and no disrespect, but if you couldn´t make it through the first 200 pages of the book, maybe you´re the one who´s missing the point?
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:19 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 34):
Each to their own and no disrespect, but if you couldn´t make it through the first 200 pages of the book, maybe you´re the one who´s missing the point?

I did read the whole thing, twice, and it's a great book. But the first 200 pages are really tough going. It fails to grip the reader.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 34):
Pray tell, JGPH1A, pray tell.

Cate Blanchett was good, and Andy Sirkis did an outstanding job as Gollum. If you watched the extras of the extended DVD's, you'd see how integral he was to the screen portrayal of the character, not just the voiceover.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
skidmarks
Posts: 6614
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:51 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:49 pm

Quoting Myt332 (Reply 26):
I read The Hobit in school when I was about 10 and found that dull too so I'm not fussed what happens.

Sorry Alex, but you are showing a shallow and immature attitude here. I would suggest you are an easy reader and only interested in plots that are transparent and easy to follow.

Both The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit require concentration and understanding to read. They are not for the faint hearted and can be difficult to follow on occasion.

I felt the film series DID miss a lot, but they simply serve to whet the appetite and I would like to think a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise read the books now do so because of the films.

Andy  old 
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional
 
Kieron747
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:54 pm

Quoting AAFLT1871 (Reply 32):
I say let George Lucas have a go at it.

Much as I admire Lucas for his original Star Wars, I think if he were let loose on The Hobbit it would be a complete and utter disaster.

He's probably try to elbow in some kind of Jar Jar Binks into the story and completely destroy it.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books, and to be honest, I'm not sure I'd see it no matter who directed it. The version in my own mind, unspoilt by 'actors', is good enough for me.

Kieron747
Airliners.Net - The Jam Rag Of The Web.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:13 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
I did read the whole thing, twice, and it's a great book. But the first 200 pages are really tough going. It fails to grip the reader.

I agree. There are parts of it that could be pared down easily without losing any of the story.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 35):
Cate Blanchett was good, and Andy Sirkis did an outstanding job as Gollum

Cate Blanchett damned with faint praise, JGPH1A! But I have to agree with you 100 per cent on Andy Sirkis: what an amazing portrayal of Gollum: he captured the essence of the character remarkably.

Reading the book you get to like or dislike characters along the way; in the film most of them I would have gladly taken by the scruff of the neck and kicked head first into the fiery hellhole of Mount Doom. I could not have cared less about most of them.
 
Kieron747
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:21 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 29):
is almost impossible to find a film completely faithful to the book

One good example is Jaws by Peter Benchley.

I bought the book as a kid from a church fair, and guess what, someone had blanked out the many swear words in the text.

The original book is quite different to the Spielberg film. The book contains much swearing, sex (Hooper shags Chief Brody's wife) and violence.

I read LOTR many years ago, and whilst I watched the movies, I still preferred the books. The films were great to look at, but I was less than enthralled in the whole film.

I'm a big sci-fi fan, and have (or at least had) a huge collection of film, TV and literature. I have not yet bought LOTR, and probably won't bother.

Kieron747
Airliners.Net - The Jam Rag Of The Web.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:59 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 38):
Reading the book you get to like or dislike characters along the way; in the film most of them I would have gladly taken by the scruff of the neck and kicked head first into the fiery hellhole of Mount Doom. I could not have cared less about most of them.

Hmmm, yes and no. When you have that size of ensemble piece and that HUGE story to tell, there isn't time in the movie for in depth character analysis - and let's be brutal, Tolkien doesn't give a lot of real depth to his characters either, with the possible exception of the hobbits. A lot of the time you have to read the appendices to get a real idea of motivation and back-story.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 38):
Cate Blanchett damned with faint praise, JGPH1A!

OK, she was excellent, but her role was really very small, and kind of decorative. The idea of using Galadriel for the prologue was inspired though.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:19 pm



hehehe  duck 
hmm well it would have made it a lot shorter!  Wink

Remember to sign the petition to make New Line come to its senses!

http://www.petitiononline.com/hobnow/petition.html
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
IFEMaster
Topic Author
Posts: 4164
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:17 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:16 am

Quoting AAFLT1871 (Reply 32):
I say let George Lucas have a go at it.

Oh please...

Quoting Kieron747 (Reply 37):
if he were let loose on The Hobbit it would be a complete and utter disaster.

 checkmark  Considering how dire Star Wars Episodes 1 through 3 were, I would say that the height of Lucas' genius ended when Return of the Jedi was made. If he were let loose on The Hobbit, we'd have Bilbo having a midochlorin count that is off the scale, and Gollum moving rocks with the power of thought.
Delivering Anecdotes of Dubious Relevance Since 1978
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:48 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 13):
Box-office returns are no indication of artistic mertit, neither are Oscar wins, and, if you happen to think so, this UTTERLY discredits YOUR exceedingly myopic assessment.

It seems you're content to dismiss not only the body of opinion of this thread but of most others besides yourself. I can't recall many, if any, bad reviews (aside from yours) the LOTR trilogy received but I can recall it got a lot of good ones and even raves. If you want to nitpick, yes, much of it was changed from the books because much of text isn't that cinematic. You're right in that you could never expect a totally faithful cinema version of the books but by far, most of their fans seem to have accepted the changes for the screen. I think given that filming LOTR was arguably a near-impossible task, Jackson probably handled it better than anyone else could have, owing to his own obsession with the books. I found that Jackson put an amazing amount of heart, along with the splendid visuals, into these films. The first was a bit slow to get going and is my least favorite but both The Two Towers and The Return Of The King were awe-inspiring and hugely memorable. You're entiled to your opinion but it seems a plurality of posters here seem to feel that you just don't get it, regarding the films. That's okay but it's still a bit sad.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:02 pm

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 43):
That's okay but it's still a bit sad.

What is sad about having your own opinion? Not all the critics loved it btw. A quick Google threw up the following reviews (among all the accolades, I have to admit) on Rotten Tomatoes:

"In Jackson's version, Tolkien's arcane mythology is reduced to a banal good vs. evil battle. The good guys are handsome warriors and elves, while their foes are black-clad wraiths on horseback and a legion of gruesome demons. Is The Fellowship of the Ring anything more than a $100 million "Dungeons and Dragons" game conjured to the screen? Nay, sire. It is imaginative, fierce, even thrilling in spots. Nevertheless, as the curtain comes down, the credits should read Game Over, not The End."

"Jackson’s interpretation of the trilogy is sometimes spirited and bold, other times humdrum and excessive. Clocking in at more than three hours, “Fellowship of the Ring” does drag at times but is more amiable than some others in the genre. The earnest performances and breathtaking scenery held my interest. . . But this film is filled with enough peril, bravery and mythical characters to gratify my most elaborate illusions. Yet I still came away empty, wanting more. I was expecting something that I could get lost in but instead found myself wading through some things that were less than satisfactory."

"The film is lavishly produced with lots of special effects – some quite violent, necessitating the PG-13 rating – but very little heart. Elijah Wood gets to grimace repeatedly as Frodo suffers physically and mentally, but Jackson never succeeds in making us care about any of it. Everyone on screen is all exercised about Frodo’s mission, but after three hours it’s hard to see why anyone in the audience should be."

"The first Lord of the Rings film is remarkably well made, but not equally entertaining. The pacing of the picture bogs the entire thing down. The actors look deep into each other's eyes time and time again, usually in slow motion, seemingly grinding the film to a halt, as it stretches itself out past the three hour mark . . . The movie goes in circles and never seems to come to an end. Still, the FX are the best I've seen in years, and it's worth a dollar theater viewing, just to take in the wonderful scenery. Fans of the book will most likely be wetting themselves, but the casual viewer may wind up thinking the whole thing is all wet."

93% of the reviews were positive, I have to admit, but not all the critics were taken by the films. I particularly liked this revew of The Return of the King:

"This third instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy suffers from the same faults as its two predecessors, namely it is (1) overlong, (2) takes itself way too seriously and is (3) a case of much ado about nothing . . .
Three hours in, as it was winding down to its predictable (both in general and specifics) ending, I found that my arse was sore and numb. There was another twenty minutes to go as we are made to sit through one endless coda after the other. Ultimately I felt as empty as we are made to believe some of the main characters are supposed to feel . . . and as empty as the movie itself.
And make no mistake: Return of the King is an empty spectacle. Nowhere did any of its characters feel like real people with real emotions – they were simply too nobly self-sacrificing, too evil, etc. for that – they are mere archetypes. To be honest I found myself more emotionally touched by the 80 minutes or so of the recent Pieces of April (shot on digital camera for a mere $160,000) than the entire three hours of the multi-million dollar Return of the King."

"Lord of the Rings"? "The Emperor´s New Clothes" more likely. And why are fans so touchy about it?
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:51 pm

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 23):
He was a character in the beginning of the book. There was no reason at all to leave him out. Like I said, you either make a film of Lord of the Rings or you don´t.

Tom Bombadil was an obvious candidate to leave out from the beginning. Books in general have more characters than films.

Overall Jackson, IMO, did an outstanding job in directing the LoTR films. He managed to convey a lot of the "feel" of Middle-Earth to the people who'd read the books without overwhelming the viewers who hadn't read them. They even mention the Valar in passing in RotK. Visualizing Moria and the Balrog were outstanding, and the Elves weren't nearly as cheesy as they could have been. Wood didn't quite get Frodo right (he was a bit too young I think) but e.g. McKellen as Gandalf was perfect.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:57 pm

Even though it sounds arrogant... could all those who haven't read the books leave the room, please.

That said, while I enjoyed the films, I don't think it'd be the end of Middle Earth if somebody other than Jackson directed The Hobbit, but maybe Clint Eastwood wouldn't be my first choice...
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:10 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 44):
93% of the reviews were positive,

Nothing wrong with having your own opinion and quite alright you don't like the films. What's sad is that you don't seem to even appreciate the blood, sweat and tears given by those involved with making the films; it was a herculean effort by all concerned, particularly Mr. Jackson. To simultaneously oversee different 1st and 2nd unit shoots which would be used in all 3 films, as well as postproduction was a masterful job of coordination, not to mention a supreme test of endurance. You're view is as valid as any but even you admit it's an extreme minority opinion. I'd think such a solid body of favor for this trilogy from fans and most critics, as well as the Motion Picture Academy, cements these films' legacy as excellence and shows that Peter Jackson is one of the most superbly gifted filmmakers of our time; certainly no second-rate hack as you'd have us believe. While it likely IS impossible to film a version which does full justice to the books, I'd wager Jackson has done better than probably nearly anyone else in this business could, including Spielberg.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 44):
The pacing of the picture bogs the entire thing down. The actors look deep into each other's eyes time and time again, usually in slow motion, seemingly grinding the film to a halt, as it stretches itself out past the three hour mark

This one aspect about the first film I'll agree on; it moves far too slowly. I've no such caveats about the 2 other films, however.

It's true that Jackson's King Kong is less loved and more criticized than his LOTR trilogy; it didn't help that the original RKO Kong is one of the most revered of earlier films. Still, I liked that movie too, although it seemed less cohesive overall than LOTR, as if Jackson was a tad less focussed. As with LOTR, Kong was a very emotional movie; something not nearly as true of the original, although, for its time, that was a standout, groundbreaking picture.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sun Nov 26, 2006 3:36 am

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 44):
"In Jackson's version, Tolkien's arcane mythology is reduced to a banal good vs. evil battle. The good guys are handsome warriors and elves, while their foes are black-clad wraiths on horseback and a legion of gruesome demons.

Read LOTR.... its pretty descriptive of what they look like, and much of the movie characters looks come from LOTR artists who have been illustrating LOTR books for decades.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 44):
Jackson’s interpretation of the trilogy is sometimes spirited and bold, other times humdrum and excessive. Clocking in at more than three hours, “Fellowship of the Ring” does drag at times but is more amiable than some others in the genre. The earnest performances and breathtaking scenery held my interest. . . But this film is filled with enough peril, bravery and mythical characters to gratify my most elaborate illusions. Yet I still came away empty, wanting more. I was expecting something that I could get lost in but instead found myself wading through some things that were less than satisfactory."

Once again if you read the book you will find it drags out for ages... Peter Jackson has done well to shorten it down so much, yet he managed to keep it long enough to cover as much of the books as was realistically possible. The first movie was simply an introduction to the other two, much as the book is.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 44):

"This third instalment in the Lord of the Rings trilogy suffers from the same faults as its two predecessors, namely it is (1) overlong, (2) takes itself way too seriously and is (3) a case of much ado about nothing . . .
Three hours in, as it was winding down to its predictable (both in general and specifics) ending, I found that my arse was sore and numb. There was another twenty minutes to go as we are made to sit through one endless coda after the other. Ultimately I felt as empty as we are made to believe some of the main characters are supposed to feel . . . and as empty as the movie itself.
And make no mistake: Return of the King is an empty spectacle. Nowhere did any of its characters feel like real people with real emotions – they were simply too nobly self-sacrificing, too evil, etc. for that – they are mere archetypes.

Well it had to be long, LOTR is a very long book! as for much ado about nothing... duh thats what the book is. A movie is only ever as good as the book it comes from, and is subject to interpretation. LOTR is one of the best selling books of all time (2nd only to the bible I think).
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Braybuddy
Posts: 5852
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:14 pm

RE: Travesty - Jackson Won't Direct 'The Hobbit'

Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:01 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 48):
Read LOTR.... its pretty descriptive of what they look like, and much of the movie characters looks come from LOTR artists who have been illustrating LOTR books for decades.



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 48):
Once again if you read the book you will find it drags out for ages... Peter Jackson has done well to shorten it down so much, yet he managed to keep it long enough to cover as much of the books as was realistically possible.

I don´t think you´ve been reading my posts. I HAVE read the book, and my beef is not with Jackson´s depiction of the book -- he did an excellent job, as I´ve said earlier, and some of the sets were stunning.

And, I agree that the book could do with some good editing. My disappointment is in the depiction of most of the characters, most of whom I couldn´t have cared less about. Gollum, Gandalf, Sam Gamgee and Treebeard are the only ones I can remember having anything remotely resembling a personality. The rest were like cloned androids.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alberchico, jetlife2, jpetekyxmd80, MrHMSH and 8 guests