Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit 467
An anonymous reader writes "Due to legal wranglings with New Line Cinema over accounting issues for Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh will not be involved in the making of either The Hobbit or the planned Lord of the Rings prequel." I suppose there is still a chance that Jackson & Co. could end up involved, but at this point that looks unlikely.
prequel? (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
So filming The Hobbit might be a good idea, as the book has a lightness of touch that most of LotR sadly needs. But getting Peter Jackson to do it would remove any chance of said lightness of touch anyway.
MGM be warned : (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Prequel??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:5, Insightful)
I, too have loved the LOTR books since I was a kid, and I too would have loved to have seen Bombadil in the movies, etc., but, let's be honest: Jackson & Co. made an absolutely amazing film trilogy, by ANY standard you care to measure, so can we fucking end shit like "hideous mess" already? It's not true, you know it's not true, so please just fucking leave it, alright? It makes you sound like you live in your mom's basement, and just annoys the rest of us.
No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the irony here is that LotR may be just about readable as written text --- go on, how many people don't skim through most of The Two Towers? --- but it's absolutely unreadable as spoken prose. If your claim is that literary English isn't as beautiful as spoken English (or spoken Icelandic), it behooves you to write at least passable spoken English. Which he fails, utterly, to do. Try reading a few paragraphs aloud. Then read, say, Tyndale's translation of the New Testament aloud.
Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? My impression from most Tolkien fans is that they felt that PJ did an OK job given the limitations of what he had to work with (screen time mostly) but I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision. I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)
There were others who tried LOTR and the Hobbit before, and made a mess of it
Yeah, a couple of animated features that were about 2 hours each and that were obviously geared to a younger, less seasoned crowd. I haven't seen the LOTR animations in a long long time but from what I remember of The Hobbit cartoon it did no worse a job than PJ considering the times, the fact it was animation and the fact that it's target audience was under the age of 13. This is by no means to say it was great or even good but if this was my 6 year old nephews introduction to Tolkien I wouldn't think badly of it.
So if Peter Jackson is not involved with the Hobbit or a LOTR prequel, then Newline should save its money because I'm just not interested.
Yeah, because without your money the last time the LOTRs trilogy would have taken a loss... [rolling of the eyes]
Listen, not to dick on you or anything but get over yourself. I'm sure there will be many people to take your empty seat at the theater if you decide not to attend a non-Jackson Hobbit movie. As long as the trailers come off a bit better than The Hulk film I'll be one of them. I hope that you take the time to consider that PJ is not the end all and be all of the Tolkien experience and that others can do well in his place. I think there is room for improvement on the PJ version of LOTRs and that a new director working on The Hobbit may be able to pull off something fantastic. To reject it without even seeing a trailer is short sighted.
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Studio management == morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they do and yes they can.
There are 60,000 wannabe directors out there and with the DP and production staff from the original filming it would not be too hard. Hollywierd is known for butchering and making a mess of things.
Hollywood is known for borderline illegal accounting practices, NO move has ever made a profit, so if you get net points on a film you are royally "fubared" you want gross points as those are the real pay dollars..... dont believe me? ask Stan Lee about the profits he recieved from his Net points on the Spiderman movies and the lawsuits he has going against the studio about it...
There is a long tradition of making up expenses to suck up all profits a film m akes.
Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a Tolkien fan. I was even a card-carrying member of the Tolkien Club of Finland back in the day. I have read LOTR maybe 15 times (lost count to be honest), Hobbit maybe 6-7 times, Silmarillion 3-4 times and miscellaneous other book few times. And I think that PJ did very good job capturing the overall feel of the book, especially when we take in to account the differences in the medium.
And I'm GLAD that he dropped Bombadil from the movie. While it works in the book, it would SUCK in the movie. Half the audience would walk out thinking "whats with the hopping and dancing dude?". Back when I first heard of the upcoming movie, my first thought was "whoa, this is great!". My second though was "um, how are they going to handle Bombadil?".
"I find a few Tolkien fans who are downright pissed with how badly ROTK came off compared to Tolkien's original work. (I'm one of them to be honest with you)"
maybe they should do their own movie then. They could waste all their time on pointless things, and the end-result would absolutely suck. PJ set out to create a good MOVIE. What many of those hardcore Tolkien fans (hell, I consider myself to be a hardcore fan, yet I can acknowledge the challenges PJ faced when making the movie) want is something that might be more faithful to the book, but would suck as a movie.
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us are of the opinion that the first movie was actually great and Tom Bombadil did need to be cut out. Some of us enjoyed parts of the movies, but overall were upset by the changes we thought were unneccessary.
But in any case, it's our opinion, you have yours, and there's no need to use uncivilized language.
Re:First reaction... (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a movie out of the Silmarillion would be like making a cartoon adaptation of a Fiscal Accounting handbook.
King Kong was rubbish - could Jackson do it well? (Score:5, Insightful)
And King Kong was unwatchably, laughably bad.
Is a Director judged on their latter movies? Because if they are, I wouldn't want Jackson to do The Hobbit.Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, my friend. But you are 100% wrong here.
The story is the story. And that's that. JRR wrote it in a particular way to tell a particular story. If you make changes, you change the story. It is no longer JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. It becomes Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - a different story.
Omissions, like Bombadil, I can excuse. It's not a change per se, it's an omission. In your mind's eye you can still imagine that they met Tom, they just didn't have enough time to show you the meeting. But the changes. Inexcusable.
If you'd like an example of why people get so torqued over this, consider Frodo. His relationship with Sam and with Gollum as they traveled. In the books it was Frodo, his trusted servant Sam, and Gollum whom he never really trusted. "His promise will hold him for a bit, Sam". That kind of a thing.
But making Frodo take the word of Gollum over that of Sam when they were at Minas Morgul? Exactly *how* does that help convey JRR's ideas better because it's on film???
Short answer is - it does not. It is a change that Peter Jackson thought would be better than the original story, or make for more exciting film, or whatever. And no offense PJ if you're reading this - but I seriously doubt you're a better story teller than the Old Professor.
Omit things due to time, fine. Add a few cute scenes that don't change the story (like the wagon ride with Frodo and Gandalf at the beginning of Fellowship) - fine.
Make a change because you think you're a better storyteller than JRR - no way. If you think you're a better storyteller then write your own damn stories and make movies of those.
Re:Movie studio screwing someone over money? (Score:1, Insightful)
> Whenever someone tries to get paid a "part of the profits" for which they
> deserve, the studios always pull the "but according to our estimates, we
> didn't make money on that film."
Unfortunately, it's not just movie studios and the RIAA. Many business owners do this. 'What? You want a raise? Sorry, we didn't make a profit last year.' Yes, after the principals gave themselves a pay raise, coincidentally, the company broke even and there wasn't anything leftover for the employees.
Business as usual.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that the issue here is with the portrayal of how the ring is eating away at Frodo's mind. In a book you can simply state it, and present internal dialogue - on film it needs to be visually portrayed in a way that makes it adequately clear to the audience exactly how deep an effect it is having. Whether having Frodo become so jealously protective of the ring that he'll betray Sam was necessary to do that, it certainly did help achieve the desired effect. Whether it was the right thing to do I can't say (film is subjective - it seemed okay to me, clearly not so to you) but certainly I can say that it was done with reason.
Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone needed to take a red pen to that bloated manuscript. Jackson at least did a good job of it. He may have irritated obsessive purists, but he took what was a decent story mired in excessive ink struggling along at a wretched pace, and turned it into a well-paced story accessible even to those who don't have the patience to read page after page of nothing.
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, the Silmarillion is great literature, and Barbara Taylor Bradford should get a nobel prize for literature.
Seriously, all his works are delightful? Well, that's beyond fandom and into religion. And arguing that popularity is a sure sign of quality is preposterous.
ian
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a huge disappointment to me. The Shire is Tolkien's greatest creation, and the Scouring of The Shire is essential to the story he was trying to tell.
Re:No PJ, I'm not interested (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a LONGTIME Tolkein fan - to the point where I ordered the First Edition out of England when I read WH Auden's original review in the NY Times some 50+ years ago. And later the 2nd edition of the Hobbit. These copies are still in my personal library.
I don't have any problem with the material that was left out. The pieces that were omitted were not central to the books. And I feel that the appearence of the movie was absolutely first rate, following Tolkein's own illustrations very well. Kudos there.
I also think the casting was excellent. I don't see how it could have been done any better.
BUT I think that the screenplay (curse you Fran, Phillppa) was mediocre at best. Some of the characters, most notably Aragon, Faramir and Denethor had serious breaks with the novel. Some of the dialog was horribly redone. The final scene with Gandalf and Saruman, and the Mouth of Sauron were deservedly cut from the theatrical release because they were a terrible botch. The addition of the elves to Helm's deep was just stupid. And the bit about Merry and Pippen trying to convince the simpering Ents to fight was revolting. And Gimli as comic relief? Horrid.
Other characters that did not stray from the novel much were fine.
So would I call it overall excellent? No, more like a B+ - An A for the visuals, casting and actors, A- for the score (a little overbearing at times) and a C for the screenplay.
The thought of having another director do the Hobbit and the Silmarillon doesn't bother me much. I like to see somebody else, especially if they are going to do it right so we don't have to put up with Fran Walsh again.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the characters themselves are ciphers --- hobbits are dimbos from Zummerset, Elves are a bit mysterious, Orcs are evil personified: go on, name an ambiguous character --- and the plot has McGuffins galore --- whoops, I've killed Galdalf, better bring him back by mysterious means.
Great fantasy writing: Le Guin.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, simply because you've read and reread the stories written by Tolkien until you've memorized every line doesn't mean 90% of the audience has.
Trying to convey a story of such magnitude in such a fast medium as film is challenging and as another poster pointed out, in a book you get insight into the character's thoughts, but on film it's all visual.
I suppose we could just go back and remake the films but instead of changing anything at all we'll just add some voice-over dialogue so we can hear the characters thoughts as outlined in the books. Maybe we can get Harrison Ford to do it...
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting indeed. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also an interesting commentary on our society today. At the time, nobody saw this as homo-eroticism, guys were allowed to be friends and be close without being considered gay.
Interesting indeed.
In the "bad" old days, the taboo against male-male sexual relations made a safe space for male-male close friendship.
It was precisely because it was unthinkable that there be a sexual dimension to it that it was OK to show affection to a male friend.
So it's actually the newfangled "enlightened" attitudes that have led to "homophobia", by introducing so much ambiguity.
Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Peter Jackson (Score:2, Insightful)
When I first heard about this project, I hung my head in despair with visions of how Hollywood would inevitably scew things up. "Relief" was my primary emotion when I saw the films.
This was a daunting (impossible?) task to begin with. Based on your typical book adaptations, or your typical film for that matter, can you just imagine how bad they COULD have been? I thought it was an admirable job. You think Steven Spielberg and Jerry Bruckheimer(cringe) could have done better?
btw, I'm glad that they got rid of Tom Bombadil and the barrow wights, and just wish that there was a way to eliminate Treebeard from the plot.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
You clearly know nothing about storytelling, writing or film.
Rather a sweeping statement. Have we met?
They are different mediums and require changes in order to work effectively as stories.
Sure they do. Just like how the Mona Lisa needs a few extra brushstrokes so it looks good in a magazine. Or Notre Dame cathedral needs to have a few digital gargoyles added if you're going to film it.
You really need to take a few film classes
No, I don't. Films are made to be watched. Mostly by people who don't take film classes. And if you're claiming to make a movie based on a book - you should stick to that book. Want a different story? Write one. But don't stick some other author's name on it.
Obsessing over details makes you blind to overarching themes and structure of a story, which are what's really important.
Well, you're looking at one simple thing I pointed out and inferring a whole awful lot. Of the things that are the most screwed up in those movies, I'd say it's the themes that are the most incorrect.
As an example, let's study the relationship between Frodo and Sam, since that's what I started this topic out on. The relationship is between a master and a servant. Frodo is intelligent, educated, and a man of means. Sam digs in the dirt. There is a love between them, but it's more akin to the affection someone has for a hound. For instance, in the book when Frodo accepts Gollum along for the ride Sam tells himself that Frodo is big hearted and tends to make mistakes along those lines, but he knows best because he's the master - so Sam does what he says. He's a lesser being, and he knows so.
But - this doesn't carry over to an American audience. We're all equals here. At least we're fond of saying so.
So, the theme is changed. Sam and Frodo exist in conflict throughout a good bit of the film. In the books, Sam would start off his ideas with "beggin your pardon" and Frodo would explain things to him like a child, or at least as an inferior. And be genuinely surprised when Sam does something that is "more clever" than Frodo gives him credit for. Like impromptu songs. Or finding the ring for him after he loses it in the tower. He praises Sam the same way you'd praise your dog if he did something especially clever, like the rare occasion when a dog drags a sleeping kid out of a burning building. "Well, aren't you clever? Good boy!"
But since this whole master-servant relationship doesn't make sense to an American second millenium audience - out she goes! Now Sam and Frodo are equals. They bicker and argue. New Extreem Samwise(tm) raises his voice at Frodo a few times! And Frodo chooses the company of Gollum over him! Over a few fucking pieces of bread?
I realize that you do have to make changes going from a book to a film - I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that doesn't give you a blank check to change anything you like and chalk it up to "well, film is different".
It's all about intention. I don't believe a lot of the changes in the story are to translate it to film. I think most of the changes are to make the movie more sellable to a modern American audience. Which is why it doesn't get a pass from me.
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, for important characters, scenes and actions, the more details in books the better. But isn't the basic idea of a book to let the READER'S imagination decide what the character looks like? Or how a sword fight unfolds, or what a valley looks like? In those situations, I'd much rather have a general description from the author and let my mind fill in the gaps.
Unless it is intricate to the story, don't waste 10 pages on something that should only take 2 to say. You don't need to write 3 pages of a song that is boring and has nothing to do with the story. I get it, the Hobbits like to sing with that Bombadil (sp?) guy! Once short song is enough.
I'll get jumped on by a bunch of people, but IMHO the wheel of time series is far superior to Tolken's for this exact reason... ignoring a couple of the latest books where Rand walked across a room, Elayne took a batch, and Nynaeve was surly as usual.
Re:prequel? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Hobbit was intended for children. If you were reading it as a child, you were the intended age, so it's no wonder you enjoyed it. Certainly older people can enjoy it, but the writing style was kept simplistic with a low required vocabulary so children could enjoy reading it.
If you read the follow-on books now, as an adult, the target age of the books, and still don't enjoy them, but you still enjoy The Hobbit... that says more about your reading abilities than Tolkiens prose.