Options
The Hobbit....so Excited
Anyone else immensley excited about the new Hobbit films!
When i heard that they were doing it but Del Torro was directing i wasnt as excited as i would have been!
But now virtually the entire crew from the original trilogy is back
Peter jackson
Phillipa Boyens
Fran walsh
Ian Mckellen
Andy serkis
Cate Blanchett
Elijah wood
I am beyond excited that Jackson is directing, its going to feel like a proper sequel!
When i heard that they were doing it but Del Torro was directing i wasnt as excited as i would have been!
But now virtually the entire crew from the original trilogy is back
Peter jackson
Phillipa Boyens
Fran walsh
Ian Mckellen
Andy serkis
Cate Blanchett
Elijah wood
I am beyond excited that Jackson is directing, its going to feel like a proper sequel!
0
Comments
Also glad that the extended LOTR are out this year on Blu-Ray.
Oooo that's something that'll tempt me to get a Blu-Ray player :eek:.
Are they going for an X certificate then? :eek:
No isn't THAT kind of dwarf movie!
Yeah, they were such a dismal failiure creatively and financially weren't they? :rolleyes:
Let me guess, you were livid at the exclusion of Tom Bombadill.
I was actually REALLY looking forward to Del Torro doing this film, he's perfectly suited to such a project, so it's a shame he's not doing it, he's the only director other than Jackson that I feel could be trusted with the franchise.
Still, it's in good hands nontheless.
I think Jackson did a fantastic job. He even bullied the studios into doing it as a trilogy when they wanted two movies. Plus the extended versions are great for the fans.
Okay, let's take those points one at a time:
a) Creativity - nope, not seeing it. Compared to the books the creativity seemed to have gone out of the window.
b) Financially - yup, they made oodles of money, but that doesn't mean that they were any good (look no further than the dreadful Avatar to prove that point).
c) Tom Bombadil? His absence didn't worry me, but omitting The Scouring of the Shire was a huge mistake.
Genrally speaking, Jackson chopped out far too much, added a lot of utter nonsense and, in doing so, completely changed many characters and their actions (Faramir, Eowyn and Denethor to name but three).
I'm pleased that Del Torro isn't directing The Hobbit - the guy fixates far too much on creature designs, putting them before the story. Then again, I'm also unhappy that Jackson is directing and co-writing The Hobbit. I certainly won't waste my money by watching it.
You sound a barrel of Laughs... I was looking for the smileys when you said that Jackson made a Hash of the Trilogy movies
but no smileys to be seen
How can you sit their and say they were not creative with some really unbelieavable characters and sets
I think that they are best fantasy movies ever made
gripping cinema for the whole family to enjoy
Roll on the Hobbit
Good, glad that you enjoyed them, but for me, when compared to the books that they were based on, Jackson made a right pig's ear of the films.
Unbelievable characters and sets? Big deal, first and foremost I go for story and characterisation, and Jackson made a mess of both.
Still, it's just MY opinion that they're bad, as it's YOUR opinion that they are 'the best', but we can only air our own opinions which will often differ.
I$m totally with you on Avatar Theory, or as I like to call it, The Brian Adams Problem.
The films are a version of the story, and to be honest, as great a story as lotr (the book) is, as a piece of writing it's ever such hard work, to make it work on screen it had to be changed radically imho.
The films represent the Tolkien universe brilliantly in incredible detail, even if you don't like the dramatic treatment that can't be denied surely?
Plus their massive success introduced a whole new generation of fans to the books. That's a great thing.
The best thing about the hobbit is it's a much more concise story, but there that doesn't mean you're going to get a verbatim copy of the book, it sounds like a big chunk is going to be completely new prequel to lotr! *crosses fingers and hopes Jackson doesn't go all George Lucas*
The only issue I usually agree about fans of the books with is that a few characters were turned into comic relief in the movies (Pippin, Gimli etc). As far as characterisation goes when I read the books (which was admittedly after I first saw TFotR) I actually found the majority of the characters to be quite samey and one dimensional. Lotr is a great story at its core, but even an uber fan of the book would find it difficult to deny that it is bogged down with unnecessary descriptions, backstory and poetry. Unless you love these particular aspects I can't see why you would dislike the movies so much.
I have not read the books so it does not matter wether its true to the book or not - its a work of fantasy story telling
and it works brilliantly, with characters the audience cares for obviously not in your case
I beg to differ
I think, as said above, the Hobbit is a more concise story and putting it across the two films they will flesh it out a lot. I mean Legolas isn't mentioned at all, however that doesn't mean he wasn't there with his father the Elvenking (David Tenant *squee*) during that part of the story and during the battle which obviously we didn't see any of but will definitely be shown in great detail in the film.
I can't imagine all the dwarf songs will be put in, maybe just one and some kind of dwarf theme like that love to have in movie soundtracks
You obviously dont understand the process of film making!
You CANNOT end a 12 hour trilogy, something which spanned 3 years by having the main characters coming home to even more heartache!
Weve HAD the war, weve HAD the death and despair, a Movie like this needs a happy ending!
How would I as a movie goer have felt if when Frodo returned to the shire it had been destroyed!
The very thing he'd been fighting to protect! It would have been an utterly depressing end and made the entire journey feel pointless!
Yeah well said. Also in the extended RotK they dealt with the end of Saruman in a similar way to the book so I don't see why the book fans moan about that so much.
Hobbit is a childrens book.
Peter jackson was behind the lovely bones and king kong, he can do wrong.
Lotr was hours of empty spectacle, I know it was hyped, and i know we were "supposed" to like it, but it made me feel nothing, it was just going through the motions. I just cant see how the hobbit is anything more than another bite at the apple.