×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Hope for Jackson Hobbit Film?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the something-worth-fighting-for dept.

Lord of the Rings 268

DrJimbo writes "Just in time for the 70th Anniversary of the Hobbit (published September 21, 1937) Entertainment Weekly has a 5-page article on a possible reconciliation between Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema that may pave the way for the director of the Lord of the Rings trilogy to return and helm the filming of The Hobbit. It was previously reported here that Jackson would not be making the Hobbit film. The EW article says that Jackson wants to make two films: first the Hobbit in its entirety and then another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings. Unfortunately Jackson already has a lot on his plate with filming of The Lovely Bones scheduled to start this month and a live action Tintin film in the works."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

268 comments

Not public domain (3, Insightful)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896409)

70 years on and The Hobbit isn't in the public domain. It truly is a shame to see our constitution thwarted in this manner.

Re:Not public domain (5, Funny)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896871)

Where in the constitution does it talk about British books?

Re:Not public domain (3, Interesting)

struppi (576767) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896953)

I wanted to ask (almost) exactly the same thing, but then I decided that I don't know very much about copyright law in the US or the UK. Anyway, it seems that in the USA

In addition, works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain, except that books originally published outside the US by non-Americans are exempt from this requirement, if they are still under copyright in their home country (see How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed for more details).
Wikipedia on Copyright [wikipedia.org]

So it should be still copyrighted in the USA if it is still copyrighted in the UK. At least that's how I anderstand it, IANAL.

Re:Not public domain (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897501)

These are special cases involving the extensions of copyright. If a book is copyrighted for 1,000 years in England, that doesn't mean it will remain copyrighted for 1,000 years in America.

Re:Not public domain (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897281)

The law doesn't differentiate between American or non-American works (except for works surrounding the period of when the extensions are granted).

Re:Not public domain (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897237)

The Hobbit isn't the kind of book that makes me pissed off about length of copyright. After all, you can get a copy of it for as little as a dollar [amazon.com]. Meanwhile, in my own field of linguistics, there are quite old works that are still useful, but they are still under copyright. In one case, the rights are owned by the academic publisher Routledge, which obscenely prices [amazon.com] a 100-page paperback as high as $135. When students can't build up a library of important literature, and scholarship is impaired, then there's something wrong with copyright.

Re:Not public domain (0, Redundant)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897983)

When students can't build up a library of important music, and the music scene is impaired, then there's something wrong with copyright.
There.. fixed that for you.. I think o_0

Re:Not public domain (2, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897441)

So I take it you were hoping for a lot of low budget knocks offs by producers like Corman and Charlie Band? "Bilbo VS Dollman" or "Puppetmaster 12, Gandalf's revenge"?

Dear Mr. Jackson (5, Funny)

thetagger (1057066) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896431)

Please, don't film Tintin. Thanks.

Re:Dear Mr. Jackson (4, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896827)

Please, don't film Tintin. Thanks.
Why not ? It worked fine for other comics, like Daredevil, Hulk, Dennis the Menace, Garfield...
Uh, ok, I see your point.

Re:Dear Mr. Jackson (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896845)

If you modernise it, you'll upset the purists.

If you don't, you'll upset the niggers.

Er, what? (5, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896439)

another film that bridges the roughly 60 years between the end of the Hobbit and the start of the Lord of the Rings

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff.

In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

The only excitement you might get is following Aragorn incognito in the guard of Minas Tirith. But to what end?

Re:Er, what? (0)

Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896519)

But to what end?


ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!1!11!

Oh yea of little faith, the one thing Hollywood knows how to do is make un-necessar(y/ily) crappy sequels!

We can only hope it goes directly to DVD.

Re:Er, what? (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896653)

Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?

Maybe it's a comedy about a bunch of Orcish misfits called "Auf Wiedersehen, Nazgul"?

Other than that, without resorting to making stuff up, there's really not a lot going on outside Mordor is there? LoTR makes it pretty clear that pretty much everyone got caught off guard by Sauron's return to Barad-dur, and even Gandalf's suspicions only got roused by Bilbo's disappearing act at his birthday party at the start of LoTR. The only other thing I can think of right now might be to take a look at Balin's return to Moria and the subsequent heroic last stand of the dwarves after waking the Balrog, maybe tying the effort into some ulterior motive connected with Sauron and Barad-dur.

Re:Er, what? (1)

Loke the Dog (1054294) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896685)

I would guess the point of filming that period is that it would allow Jackson to make a lot of the content himself. It's probably a lot easier to please everyone that way. The lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.

Re:Er, what? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896893)

lord of the rings gave him very little room for creativeness.

But he still took it.

I know there are going to be people who are going to fight me on this but... I realize that Jackson had a ton of material to work with and not all of it was going to end up in the films. I understand this about The Hobbit too. What irks me is that Jackson, at points, went out of his way to botch the film-book relationship. He took up creative license in areas where the books had just as good of an answer that would have required no more in the ways of development and time then what Jackson used in his "solution" to a non-existent problem. The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.

Besides, I felt that JRRT's version of the ultimate destruction of the ring was a million times more poetic and had a fantastic air of irony. Why would Jackson feel that he could best that?

At this point I don't care who directs The Hobbit. In a lot of ways I don't even care if it ever gets made. This is largely due to seeing how much Jackson got away with botching LOTRs and now has set up a precedent for the future botching of JRRTs works.

Of course, I also partially blame Lucas for some of this too but that's a whole different story.

Re:Er, what? (3)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897193)

The worst is when he does it in the name of comic relief and makes what JRRT created as strong, competent elements into common oafs. The ents are a prime example of this.

Wait...what? Of all the things, the Ents were pretty damn close to how JRR Tolkien wrote them; very deliberate to the point where they appeared slow and oafish, but terrible when roused, and pretty out-of-touch with the world in any case. If anything, Tolkien's Treebeard was sillier than Jackson's.

On the other hand, I was pretty irritated when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep. I'll admit, 300 against tens of thousands looks pretty ridiculous on screen (even if it's Spartans v. Persians, never mind scraggly horsemen v. orcs), but the additional troops robbed it of that 'Battle of New Orleans' sort of feel, and also made the elves unnecessarily sympathetic.

Re:Er, what? (5, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896787)

What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period?

Hmm.. I'm not 100% on the timeline but...

Gandalf and Aragorn meet. The romance of Aragorn and Arwen. Aragorn serving with the Armies of Rohan.

Gollum pursues Bilbo from the mountains. I beleive Gandalf investigates the creature and discovers its history in this period. Mordor also captures Gollum at some point.

The Dwarves (including Balin of the hobbits) try and retake Moria.

Sauruman is corrupted by Mordor through the Palantir.

Sauroman corrupts Theoden through Grima Wormtongue.

Sauron, identified as the 'Necromancer' was discovered as the source of evil in Mirkwood and was driven out by the White Council, only to resurface later rebuilding in Mordor.

I dunno... I've seen movies made on smaller premises than that :)

Re:Er, what? (4, Insightful)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897187)

Agreed.
Dwarves, Elves, and Humans were already fighting Suaron on their own fronts by the time they talked about it at Elrond's Rivendell council in Fellowship. Plenty of elaborate battle scenes for Jackson to film. If they can get at least a handful of the same actors from the other movies, they'll do fine.

Re:Er, what? (1)

ghyd (981064) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896789)

"What exactly happens, of any interest, in that period? Bilbo uses the Ring a few times to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. Writes memoirs. Lends mithril armour to the Michel Delving Mathom-house. Wow, riveting stuff." Sounds better than what I've seen of the first Lord of the Rings adaptations. A wealth of special effect, but zero value as a movie, not even close to early and spectacular Spielberg/Lucas movies.

Re:Er, what? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896875)

Isn't there at least 1/2 a page in the Silmarillion telling all that's happening during all that time ?

I suppose some kind of anthropological documentary on hole digging in the Shire and Barad-Dur building in Mordor could have some kind of thing going for it... If they get a good actor to read the commentary... They could sell it to National Geographic or something.

Re:Er, what? (1)

Clockwork Apple (64497) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896877)

Ditched Bombadil, and the return to the Shire, really the last several chapters of the trillogy, but wants to do a film based on, nothing.

My only hope is that Bill and Ted show up to hijack Bilbo and Gollum for use in their highschool English Lit. class.

Re:Er, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896915)

Sssan Dimas High, loves it we does, doesn't we precioussss? Gollum gollum.

Re:Er, what? O! (1)

edittard (805475) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896901)

They could always pad it out with a few musical numbers. Heck, what better way is there to make up for the omission of Tom Bombadil?

Re:Er, what? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897125)

Hmmm... Sounds like "LOTR Episode 2". I'll watch it as long as Jar-Jar Binks isn't in it.

Re:Er, what? (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897207)

In the wider world, Sauron has returned to Mordor and is rebuilding Barad-dur. Three hours on an Orcish construction site, then?
Use your imagination. Think Red v. Blue, use the existing LOTR games to make a machinema of it. A sarcastic take on evil overlords from the underling point of view.

(apologies to the English, I have a poor ear for accents)

Orc 1: 'E's done it agin'.

Orc 2: Wot's dat?

Orc 1: E's gone an' changed the bloody plans ag'in.

Orc 2: Piss off! Wot's 'e done this time?

Orc 1: Mr. 'igh and mighty dark lord's changed the tower top. Wants to mater'alize up thair.

Orc 2: But 'e's jus' a giant dis'm'bodied flamin' eyeball. It'll look ridik'lous!

Orc 1: Tha's wot I said! "Barad'dur'll look like a giant bleedin' lighthouse," I says. "Wot'll you be doin', guidin' ships in o'er the flamin' lakes o' lava?"

Orc 2: Cor, you didn'!

Orc 1: Yes, I says it! Right to his flamin' eyeball!

Orc 2: S'ppose that explains the singe and smoke about you. Bits're flakin' off.

Orc 1: Yes, yes it does. So I'm off t' round up the gang. Eyeball turrets for everyone.

Re:Er, what? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897411)

now that was some funny shit when reading the book I never thought the Eye was visible physically, just something one felt searing the mind

Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct it? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896445)

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896565)

While I think the movies are good I don't think they are exactly Tolkien. Its more like Peter Jackson's LOTR instead of Tolkien. A few liberties were taken but for the most part they didn't damage the story. Sure you will find a few Tolkien fanatics who can recite a dozen if not hundred changes/errors/omissions but these are the same types that would not be please unless even the dialog matched word for word... and still they would find something amiss!

As for the whole part of "between the hobbit and LOTR" - uh... whats he working for? Turbine's LOTRO?

You are taking the piss, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896627)

A few liberties were taken but for the most part they didn't damage the story


There were significant 'invented' plot lines, and a number of characters had their personalities seriously warped. Jackson couldn't have even read JRRT's complaints about plans made in his lifetime because he repeated many of the same mistakes.

Let Matt Groening produce The Hobbit, it would probably be a superior film.

My three questions about Peter Jackson's LotR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897101)

1) Why did he have to make Frodo and Sam gay? No, seriously. There have been jokes made, but it's true. A gay subtext was deliberately added. Why was that necessary?

2) Why did he make pipeweed into marijuana when the appendices clearly specify it is nicotine/tobacco? I saw "Meet the Feebles" and I realize the guy is a gigantic pothead, but why was it necessary to ruin someone else's work by inserting his personal hobby into it?

3) Why didn't he bother to read "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" before making the movies?

Re:You are taking the piss, right? (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897639)

There were significant 'invented' plot lines, and a number of characters had their personalities seriously warped. Jackson couldn't have even read JRRT's complaints about plans made in his lifetime because he repeated many of the same mistakes.


While not entirely successful, changes were necessary to make it possible to make a poetic work function dramatically.

Dramatic storytelling is fundamentally unrealistic, because it overemphasizes the power of an individual's ability to control situations through their decisions. LotR doesn't believe the fundamental model. In LotR, no individual is capable of achieving success. While individuals may fail through their own actions, they cannot succeed. This is a profoundly un-dramatic viewpoint; the rules of drama say that the protagonist must overcome adversity through his own virtues. In LotR, characters may attain their ends, but they do not achieve them. It is not accidental that Frodo fails in his quest, it is a deliberate philosophical statement about the action of grace in the lives of people who at least try to be virtuous.

In Tolkien's world view, the agency of individuals even in their own decisions is limited. People roll along in the grooves that their habitual actions have worn in their character. We are carefully presented with pairs of characters in which the practice or non practice of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love play out in their destinies: Frodo/Gollum, Theoden/Denethor, Faramir/Boromir. The idea that a character's destiny is part of a larger process than the events of the story is also anti-dramatic.

It is inevitable that changes are made to make the movie work dramatically -- at the very least the elaborate parallelism of Tolkien would have doubled the length of the movies. This is not heresy, Tolkien himself was the kind of author who never stopped changing a manuscript until it was torn from his hands. Some of the movie changes work, some of them don't.

The changes that don't work fail because the story is simply too complex already for them to be developed adequately. As it is, considerable familiarity with the story is needed to follow the movies. The story changes work to the degree their ends are consistent with time available. The changes in Faramir, for example, simply don't ring true, because there isn't enough time to show him making a believable "change of heart" decision. Rewriting Theoden's death scene to be played with Eowyn was not only time efficient, it heightened the emotional impact of the scene. It also brings the somewhat brash screen Theoden back to Tolkien's Theoden, whose saving grace was humility.

Many changes were done to preserve pieces of poetry in the original; Eomer's words are put in Theoden's mouth; the words of the unnamed narrator are put in Gandalf's mouth. By in large these are to the benefit of the movies in that they preserve some of the beauty of the original.

I was watching the DVD of Return of the King recently, and I was particularly struck by the Rohirrim in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. This was of course altered to fit the needs of dramatization, but I believe Tolkien would have been thrilled. It shows how Jackson understands the heroic values of Lord of the Rings, even if he is not 100% successful in translating those values to the screen: heroism is not conferred by victory, but by acting courageously when reason tells you victory is impossible.

Re:You are taking the piss, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897777)

changes were necessary to make it possible to make a poetic work function dramatically.

[self-absorbed fallacious ramble snipped]

Most of the dumb changes were just Peter Jackson/Fran Walsh's silly whims, and were not necessary.

Obviously "changes were necessary," it's the specific changes people are dissatisfied with.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896657)

Yes.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896721)

I didn't think the movies fit my experience of the books, but in hindsight I believe his interpretation is more true to the books than mine. I think it largely stems from him making it much more of an "grown up" experience than what I saw the book as. The movies were gloomy - reinforced by the soundtrack and the level of color saturation -, but the books never seemed that way to me. I read LOTR for the first time when I was around 13, and that probably has colored my impression of it a it.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (3, Interesting)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896899)

No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (4, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896911)

Am I the only one who felt the LOTR movies were not especially good and that Jackson's eccentric style may not have been the best fit for the book?
When I think how incredibly bad it could have been, I'm really glad Jackson delivered a decent adaptation. It may not be not insanely great, but it's fair, and given the complexity of the task that's already quite something IMO.

Uwe Boll (2, Funny)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897301)

We could always get him [imdb.com] to direct it. I hear he is quite good.

Or Tarantino? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897535)

[Thorin, with afro, Gandalf, with long greasy hair, in dark suits on their way to 'question' a burglar in the Shire]

Thorin: OK, so tell me about Rings of Power.

Gandalf: OK, what do you want to know?

Thorin: Rings of Power are legal there, right?

Gandalf: Yeah, they're legal, but not 100% legal. I mean, you can't just walk into a party, slip one on and blink away. They want you to use them in your home or certain designated mountains.

Thorin: And this is the shire?

Gandalf: Yeah. It breaks down like this, OK, it's legal to try it, it's legal to have it and, if you're gonna destroy it it's legal to use it, it's legal to conceal it, but wait -- it doesn't matter because, get a load of this -- if you get stopped by the the Nazgul, it's illegal for them to search you... now that's a right the Nazgul don't have.

Thorin: I'm going, that's all there is to it, I'm fuckin' going.

Re:Would it really be so bad if he didn't direct i (1)

JeffElkins (977243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897919)

No, you're not.

Jackson leaving out the The Scouring of the Shire ruined the movies for me. Also he totally botched Frodo by choosing girly-boy
Elijah Wood for the part. Frodo was a middle-aged Hobbit. Ian Holm would have been perfect.

Hope? (-1, Troll)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896459)

If by "hope" you mean "There's hope that Peter Jackson will have a heart attack and die before shitting all over the Hobbit." then perhaps it's the right word.

TWW

Re:Hope? (1)

grommit (97148) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896515)

So you're one of the four people in the world that think that books should be adapted to movies exactly word for word.

Re:Hope? (2, Insightful)

grommit (97148) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896533)

Whoops, I forgot that the GP may be a Tom Bombadil fan. Yes, tack on an extra half hour to an already very long movie just so you can add... not very much to the overall story line. Brilliant.

Re:Hope? (2, Interesting)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896651)

Oh, and the scouring of the shire also...so after a HUGE battle...then another HUGE battle, you get the destruction of Sauron and the aftermath...then ANOTHER half an hour to 45 minutes of resolving stuff in the shire...THEN the Grey Havens, THEN Sam coming back.

Yep, the general public already complained that there were 3 endeds to Return of the King, why not throw a 4th one in there also....just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy. Happy with really long, boringly edited movies.

Re:Hope? (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896747)

just so those 4 people in the world that complained that the LOTR wasn't word for word like the books will be happy

Such people are never happy with any adaptation no matter how close to the original material. It's simply not possible to adapt such a story to the cinema and not change things. At the very minimum it's impossible to match what such pedants imagined in their heads so something will always bother them.

On the other hand, Jackson's version was just plain bad.

TWW

Re:Hope? (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896831)

I'm one of those 4 people. It should have been 6 movies and every single nuance should have been added, and eight million other nuances (which were 100% faithful to the "canon") could have been worked in to keep people interesting.

The interesting thing about LOTR was the internal cohesion of the world. It was never "great literature."

Re:Hope? (1)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897923)

Oh, and the scouring of the shire also..
Actually, yes, but not as you put it. The Return of the King should have ended with Aragorn's crowning which seems a natural end. Then the Scouring of the Shire could have been a seperate short film. Saruman is assumed locked up in Orthanc, guarded by the Ents, so nothing more needs to be done there.

Mind you, I really liked the films and I'd already read the books too many times too count, so it's not all fans who were disappointed. There were some aspects I didn't like, but I can see why PJ felt they were required. I like his attitude of considering it as if it were an actual event, and he was simply retelling the story.

Re:Hope? (0, Troll)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896659)

So you're one of the four people in the world that think that books should be adapted to movies exactly word for word.

No, I'm one of the other four people that still thing that people who can't direct shouldn't be allowed to. Jackson butchered LotR, sure, but that's nothing to do with adapting such a long book. Anyone would have to make cuts and changes make LotR into a watchable movie (or set of movies). Everything that worked in the films was down to other people: the acting (in the face of a terrible script), design, cinematography etc. were all superb. But Jackson's "I flicked through the book once and didn't like it" script sucked, and his direction was comically bad.

TWW

Re:Hope? (2, Interesting)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896531)

Or...you could just not go. You obviously didn't like the LOTR movies, and that would be apparent that you didn't like them right from the first movie...so I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

If you think that Peter Jackson ruined the movies for you, why did you watch all 3? Or did you? Or are you just a troll?

Re:Hope? (1, Interesting)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896673)

I have to ask, did you also go and watch the second and third movie also? If so, why?

Saw the first in the cinema, said I wasn't going to pay to sit throught that sort of crap again. Fiancee talked me into going to the second shit-fest. That was that. I've never seen the third and I still want my money back for the first two. Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghost town.

TWW

Re:Hope? (1)

grommit (97148) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896711)

Well, I applaud you for putting your money where your mouth is but I respectfully disagree with your opinion about Jackson's directing ability.

Re:Hope? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896825)

Cool...though you don't bring up specifics. "shit-fest" and "crap" don't really explain much on what you thought was wrong with the movies in relation to the books or what your criticism is at all. Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems rather juvenile...which would lead one to believe it's more troll than actual criticism.

Re:Hope? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896865)

Nevermind, you kind of explained it in another post. Opinions differ. I happened to think he did a great job of adaptation. But will my opinion change your opinion? Nope...same as yours won't change mine.

I may not like your opinion...but I will fight to the death for my right to fight to the death with you!

Re:Hope? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897095)

Actually I watched all 3. The first one was pretty good, the second also - despite the fact that it deviated somewhat from the books it included enough original Tolkien to make it worthwhile. The third - where to begin? Perhaps the only thing it has in common with the book is that Sauron is defeated. Why base a story on a book if you're going to write your own script? Instead of a beautiful, subtle story and build-up of tension and suspense, it was turned into standard Hollywood crap, filled with cliché after cliché.

I actually paid to watch the first one 6 times, and ditto with the second. I also bought the DVDs. The third I saw once. Frankly I hope PJ is prevented from ruining "The Hobbit".

Re:Hope? (1)

Clockwork Apple (64497) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897277)

"If you think that Peter Jackson ruined the movies for you, why did you watch all 3? Or did you? Or are you just a troll?"

The same reason folks slow down to look at car crashes. Yeah its kind of morbid, but we just wanted to see how big the pile of bodies is. Not only was it a very tall pile, it was wide too.

Some folks figure that if they didnt like the first one and complained, then maybe they should see the rest if they were going to speak from actual experience, instead of talking about a movie they didnt see.

All Tolkien fans wanted to like the movies, those of us who loved all three of the books, just didnt like PJ's production very much.

You liked it I assume. Did you bother to go see all three of the movies, or are you basing your idea of the last two movies from the first one? I wasnt sure PJ was really going to screw it up until the last one. I wanted to like them so much I ignored the changes in the first two because he was supposed to be fixing it all for the DVD special editions.

Isnt it terrible when the thing you like so much is hated by others who seem more invested in the thing than you are? Like they think they are so much better than you are. Well we dont, so you can start getting over it now.

Re:Hope? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897495)

No, of course you're entitled to your opinion. I was railing more on the "it sucks, nuff said" type of criticism. When I see or read something that I don't like and take the time to write about not liking it, I usually explain why I didn't like it.

I happen to love the books...read them back in the 70's when I was a teen and re-read them every few years. I knew from the beginning that the movies were NOT going to be verbatim like the books and some things in the movies really bugged me, but overall the movies turned into 3 of my favorites of all time. I can enjoy the books AND the movies...separating the two as two different things.

I also enjoy reading criticism of the movies in relation to the books...that is if the criticism offers something to me that's worth reading. When I just see "it sucks" from people, it means about as much as "it's great" from others. I want the "here's why I think it sucked". It's a very rare thing to actually see someone explain why instead of "he can't direct, he can't write, he ruined it". That's not an explanation, sorry. This goes for any movie or book.

Do we care? (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896467)

Do we honestly care if he directs them? I mean, we care that a bad director doesn't get to, but as long as it's a decent director, does it really matter who it is?

On the other hand, if he manages to get a script written for the 60 year time difference, and it's not 60 years of Gandolf riding around in grey and the hobbits having teaparties (since that's basically what happened), then I'm all for the new film and Jackson. I'm not real hopeful, though, since all the really interesting stuff happened in the books and the other years weren't covered because they simply weren't that interesting.

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years? Gandolf was obviously out doing some sort of research, but I don't think anything specific was ever mentioned. And the hobbits were pretty clearly doing hobbit-like things in their little boring houses. They don't really even have politics, just a few that don't particulary care for each other from feuds that happened generations ago over silly things.

Re:Do we care? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896505)

Well, if we care about the look and feel and tone to be close to the LOTR movies...then yeah.

The Harry Potter movies have different directors and every one of them since the second one has a slightly different look and tone to it. For instance, why totally change the way certain sets look? Hagred's cabin was the same in the first two movies (that had the same director), yet in the third movie they had to go and change it to look different. That's just a "for instance".

Granted, Bilbo will probably have to be played by someone other than Ian Holm.

Re:Do we care? (1)

Godwin O'Hitler (205945) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896631)

I'd be gutted if Jackson directed The Hobbit and shudder to think what he is going to change this time round.
Will the cavalry come to the rescue again in the battle of the five armies?
Will he really portray the elves as nasty pieces of work?
Will he be able to capture the humour of the moment in a story that is often very amusing? LOTR (the film) wasn't exactly a laugh a minute was it despite having two natural comics in Pippin and Merry.

What about the 60 years in-between? Well I do think we have enough information for a good scriptwriter to extrapolate a decent story line from it. My only problem is that if Jackson gets hold of it we're going to have to put up with half an hour discovering how and when Aragorn met and fell in love with frigging Arwen.

Re:Do we care? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896781)

I agree with you except the elves... They WERE nasty and antagonistic things in the book. The books made it VERY clear that humans were not only unwelcome, but beneath them.

Re:Do we care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897251)

Or maybe someone can name some of the interesting things that supposedly happened in those 60 years?


Radagast buggered some squirrels. Several dwarves assembled themselves into cheerleading pyramids. Gandalf invented the hokey-pokey. Bilbo slapped some hoes.

"Gandolf riding around in grey" (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897597)

Pal, there are millions exactly waiting to see that.

I remember, when we watched two towers with one of my friends who has never been into anything lotr, heck even fantasy and sci-fi, (he is an academics lawyer) his jaw ACTUALLY dropped in the scene where gandalf throws out his cloak and makes saruman leave theoden's body, and he wasnt able speak for a 3-4 seconds.

boy, if some director can direct films like that, you dont let him/her go. and take no chances.

A bit OT, perhaps (2, Funny)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896563)

But I'm looking forward more to the Tintin movies than to the Hobbit-one.

Re:A bit OT, perhaps (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896923)

But I'm looking forward more to the Tintin movies than to the Hobbit-one.

Then presumably you are Belgian with little experience of interesting comic books.

Re:A bit OT, perhaps (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897585)

Why thank you for your assumption, which is so flattering to my person. You must be very popular.

Re:A bit OT, perhaps (0, Offtopic)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897647)

Agreed.

I've never read the comics but I used to love watching the animated series after school.

Never read the hobbit.

Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (4, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896583)

Let's see, Jackson only made them what, $3 billion dollars? I think each movie was directly good for around a billion, plus or minus $100 million, and this is talking straight box office, not even considering DVD's, TV rights, moichandizin', etc. I would be no way surprised in hearing the total take is up to $5 billion at this point, and a project like this is going to be like Star Wars or the goddamn Beatles catalog, a fat stream of recurring revenue for decades to come. And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy? Do they think they could have pulled it together without someone like Peter Jackson at the helm? By all rights, the trilogy should have flopped -- Hollywood can't do quality. LOTR being brilliant is about as long of odds as Babylon 5 finishing its entire five year run and only sucking in the last season.

So New Line realizes they could stop buggering the goose that laid the golden egg and make another fat pile of shiny if they treat it nice? DUUUH, but still a bit of cluefulness not expected from Hollywood. Now go make the movie!

Re:Someone smack jollyreaper with a cluestick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897167)

Let's see, Jackson only made them what, $3 billion dollars?


Yeah, and the parade of nameless directors of the Harry Potter films are responsible for their success as well!

Funny how none of the great Peter Jackson's other movies can manage to make a dime, what with his tremendous appeal and all. It's almost as if the draw of LOTR had nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (4, Informative)

Iftekhar25 (802052) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897317)

Overall good point, but:

And this is off an initial investment of $300 million for the whole trilogy?

Jackson & crew actually went way over budget, and the total was closer to $500 million plus, with all the extra effects shots they had to do in the latter movies because of lack of planning in principle photography (which, understandably focused more on the first two films, which is why there's less special effects in the first films than the last one), and the need to do pick-ups, etc.

In addition, they renegotiated contracts with pay rises for members of the crew after the crew discovered that they were really onto something, and New Line wasn't spreading the wealth.

Re:Someone smack New Line with a cluestick? (0)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897987)

Oh, but you're not a BUSINESS MAJOR (angelic music), are you? Who are you to comment on the lofty and deific decisions of the BUSINESS MAJOR (angelic music) and his or her arcane ways of making (read: losing) money, snorting cocaine and making sure good ideas are thoroughly slaughtered? How dare you! The BUSINESS MAJOR (angelic music) is our Savior!

Start the live-action Evangelion movie, please! (2, Informative)

agoliveira (188870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896767)

I really enjoyed LOTR, really, but there is a project that Weta has in the pocket that I would like much more to see realized: a live-action Evangelion movie. They have being studying it for quite some time but it's "on hold" [wetaworkshop.co.nz] for quite some time already.

Re:Start the live-action Evangelion movie, please! (1)

bioglaze (767105) | more than 6 years ago | (#20896869)

I fear that it will become too "westernized", meaning that they could drop all religious symbolism etc.

Re:Start the live-action Evangelion movie, please! (1)

agoliveira (188870) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897809)

I hope not, that would kill the whole idea and it will become a "mecha" movie and that's it.

Too many plot line changes---- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20896937)

If Jackson changes as much of the story as he did for LotR then we'll have Snow White and the Seven Dwarves tickling Smaug to death after visiting Tom Bombadil and killing the trolls by sticking her Ollivander special phoenix feather core wand up their noses.

Stop with the Bombadil whining already! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897921)

Tom Bombadil was VASTLY gay. Even Tolkein confessed on his death bed when he said, "My only regret was including that totally gay Bombadil. Oh my God, was he ever gay. Liberace gay."

Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geeks ; (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897273)

either Jackson does it, or we dont watch it.

Re:Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897347)

If you're speaking on the behalf of irrational fanboy geeks, sure.

If the movie's done well, why does it matter if Peter Jackson directed it or not?

Re:Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geek (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897505)

speaking on behalf of the millions of take-no-chances geeks in fact.

if a movie is done well, no problem. but fool s/he be anyone who would go and take chances on a new director, whereas there is already a director that has done the exact same thing spectacularly well.

Re:Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geek (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897799)

there is already a director that has done the exact same thing spectacularly well.


They should get that guy to do it instead of Peter Jackson.

Re:Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geek (1)

jpfed (1095443) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897507)

What makes Jackson the right choice? My experience of The Hobbit was that it was a sillier/ more irreverent book than any of LotR. Its tone was different. I'm not saying he's necessarily the wrong choice, but why would we need the same director?

Re:Probably speaking on behalf of millions of geek (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897759)

Lotr was one of the most successful book to screen adaptations. And mind that, there are only 4-5 of such successful adaptations.

if, someone can effectively translate the spirit of a book that well to screen, s/he can as well make any irrelevant episode in a lore relevant and in-line.

Dragons! Balrogs! Morgoth! Silmarils! (2, Interesting)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897427)

I want to see The Silmarillion [wikipedia.org] made as a mini-series!

Re:Dragons! Balrogs! Morgoth! Silmarils! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20897895)

Even though most of it is the invention of Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay?

Can we just get another director? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897649)

I mean really. He did a good job overall, quibbling over storyline changes from the books notwithstanding. That being said, there are a lot of very competent directors out there who would jump at the chance at doing an adaptation of _The Hobbit_. The real genius was Tolkien, not Jackson. Let him have Tintin, hire another director and give us a good movie.

Oh please don't (-1, Flamebait)

Hemi Rodner (570284) | more than 6 years ago | (#20897931)

PJ did a terrible job with LoTR. Although it's nice that he eliminated Tom Bombadil, it was still horrible. Really. All the characters maintained their shallowness, just like it's depicted in the books.

So it'd be best for all if he doesn't do it. Give the work to a more inspired director.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...