DBSTalk Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Arcane Movie Trivia King
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
oh, movies have been made by different filmakers for more years than i have been around and guess what!!!! it's pretty much arrogance on anyone's part to think a film won't be any good just because a certain filmaker isn't involved-under that logic, i guess aliens shouldn't have been made by up and coming director james cameron because, golly-he's just not ridley scott...or maybe the empire strikes back isn't such a good idea because old school director irvin kershner just isn't hot newbie george lucas...or maybe all those wasted james bond flicks by different guys or even those horrible thin man and tarzen films ...or...
 

·
DBSTalk Club Member
Joined
·
367 Posts
Its possible that the new director could do it justice. However, Peter Jackson was Lord of the Rings (The Movies). He was the creative juice and force behind the whole thing. So as much as it could be a good movie, its gonna be tough. I am really dissappointed in greed (New Line) rules again. Just pay him the damn money and do the movies right.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
13,242 Posts
I think its to soon to say that Jackson definatly won't be directing The Hobbit. MGM definately wants him to be the director.

I am intruiged by the comments about a second LOTR prequel. The obvious source for a prequel other than The Hobbit would be The Silmarillion. It's not like Tolkein didn't provide the background/prequel informaition needed for 10 movies. (A 12 volume set of books is available of the History of Middle Earth which Tolkein produced, including what became The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.) The book itself is numbingly boring through many parts (but then again, so is The Lord of the Rings), but the story of Sauron's first rise to power and defeat certainly would be worth telling, especially by a director like Jackson. For myself, its not that Jackson is the only director who could possibly make an adequate movie on either The Hobbit (or two movies), or The Silmarillion. But its not like just any director could do it either. The Hobbit is a huge book, easily 2 or 3 movies worth, just as LOTR was. Even then, lots of cutting to the story will need to be done, just as in LOTR. Jackson won over the bulk of the Ringers with his handling of the first episode of the LOTR series. New Line is tampering with success and it could blow up in their faces.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
4,345 Posts
When you put in a different director, you get a different movie. It's not that another director couldn't do The Hobbit - it's that, if they did, when you put it on the shelf with the other movies, "The Hobbit" won't "feel the same" as the LotR trilogy and will always be "the red-headed stepchild".

"The Hobbit" will ALWAYS be compared to Jackson's vision if it's not done with Jackson and that could cripple it from the start.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,060 Posts
djlong said:
When you put in a different director, you get a different movie. It's not that another director couldn't do The Hobbit - it's that, if they did, when you put it on the shelf with the other movies, "The Hobbit" won't "feel the same" as the LotR trilogy and will always be "the red-headed stepchild".

"The Hobbit" will ALWAYS be compared to Jackson's vision if it's not done with Jackson and that could cripple it from the start.
Obviously we all hope that the Hobbit will be made with full homage to LOTR (to me that means consistency in presentation and quality with in depth knowledge of the book). But the Hobbit is a very different story from LOTR. It was written originally for children and it reflects that. But it's clearly loved and read by adults. It also lends itself to a movie far more easily than LOTR. I'm happy to give a new director a chance -- I don't want to see a "remake" of LOTR.

Worst case it flops -- sad for us fans, tough for the studio, and par for the course for the Hobbit as a movie (the first two were next thing to a total waste).

Now about the comment that LOTR was "numbingly boring"! The first time I read it, I was literally screaming when the door was slammed in Sam's face after Frodo was captured and we skipped back to Aragorn. Jackson read LOTR 19 times (his own statement). I've only read it 14 times so maybe I'm not a good judge. While it does have marvelous description at times which is what allows us to "feel" the story, I can't believe anyone could call it boring let alone numbingly. The Silmarillion on the other hand, while great background, was numbingly boring.

PS: Did you ever notice the significant inconistencies between the Hobbit book and the LOTR books? Same author.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
13,242 Posts
richlife said:
Now about the comment that LOTR was "numbingly boring"! The first time I read it, I was literally screaming when the door was slammed in Sam's face after Frodo was captured and we skipped back to Aragorn. Jackson read LOTR 19 times (his own statement). I've only read it 14 times so maybe I'm not a good judge. While it does have marvelous description at times which is what allows us to "feel" the story, I can't believe anyone could call it boring let alone numbingly. The Silmarillion on the other hand, while great background, was numbingly boring.
Please note the words "many parts" right before "(but then again, so is The Lord of the Rings)". "Many Parts" also refers to LOTR. I have no idea how many times I have read The Hobbit and LOTR. I first read them when I was in eight grade, so about when I was 14. I am now 52. For a number of years I read them once a year, perhaps every other year. I had not been reading them that often the past 20 years or so, but I then reread them prior to seeing each movie. I have worn through several sets of paperbacks, I own the leatherbound collectors editions, and I have them as e-books. I wouldn't do that with books which I found overall to be "numbingly boring." But in all honesty, there are segments where Tolkein goes into long Elvish poetry segments etc., that are less than completely captivating. Kind of like reading the geneology sections of the Bible. :D
 

·
Godfather
Joined
·
382 Posts
djlong said:
When you put in a different director, you get a different movie. It's not that another director couldn't do The Hobbit - it's that, if they did, when you put it on the shelf with the other movies, "The Hobbit" won't "feel the same" as the LotR trilogy and will always be "the red-headed stepchild".

"The Hobbit" will ALWAYS be compared to Jackson's vision if it's not done with Jackson and that could cripple it from the start.
I agree. The Hobbit will have an uphill battle. LOTR set the bar very high, and Jackson was responsible for much of its success. The look and feel has to be the same or Hobbit doesn't have a chance.

Bogy, Silmarillion would be an amazing project. Much less characterization making the story telling vastly harder for a mass market production. My favorite aspect was that the entire story of LORT was only a tiny slice of the timeline described in Silmarillion. So a Silmarillion project would have to be 85 hours to be proportional. Then there's the extended version to think about.
 

·
New Member
Joined
·
7 Posts
jrjcd said:
oh, movies have been made by different filmakers for more years than i have been around and guess what!!!! it's pretty much arrogance on anyone's part to think a film won't be any good just because a certain filmaker isn't involved-under that logic, i guess aliens shouldn't have been made by up and coming director james cameron because, golly-he's just not ridley scott...or maybe the empire strikes back isn't such a good idea because old school director irvin kershner just isn't hot newbie george lucas...or maybe all those wasted james bond flicks by different guys or even those horrible thin man and tarzen films ...or...
I think Empire was the best directed yet. Alot better than the last 3.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top