Slashdot Mirror
Peter Jackson Will Not Be Making The Hobbit
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.
the hobbit isn't a prequel. the lord of the rings is a sequel to the hobbit. the hobbit was written first!
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I was just re-reading bits of William Goldman's "Which Lie Did I Tell?", and there's a particularly interesting section, dealing with adaptations. And one of the first things he talks about is that, when adapting, you can't keep everything, sometimes, you barely keep anything, the trick being to, as he says, keep the "spine" of the story and reject anything that won't work on the screen, because books and movies ARE TWO DIFFERENT FUCKING MEDIUMS.
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Way too much homo-eroticism going on between Sean Astin and Elijah Wood.
Ummm, have you READ the books? Did you manage to forget all of the "hand stroking"? If anything, Jackson toned it down.
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.
Finkployd
The guy made them a bleepin' 10^9 bucks with the trilogy, and they assume they can slot in any schmoe that can aim a camera?
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"I have yet to find a single Tolkien fan who said he did an excellent job at capturing Tolkien's over all vision."
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Great, you have an opinion. I'm glad. Unfortunately, it's only that, so quit trying to force an objective standard on a subjective medium. If you enjoyed the LOTR movies, we're all happy for you. Some of us didn't. Some of us are of the opinion that Jackson changed the spine of the story when he changed characters, i.e. Faramir (shows his quality by taking the ring to Osgiliath, yeah right), Theoden (let's make him a pansy so Aragorn looks better), and even Frodo (in Return of the King he never distrusts Sam).
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.
Yes, you can dance to Radiohead.
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.[% slash_sig_val.text %]
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
You're joking, right? Tolkien is the master of wasting pages. The entire fucking flight from the Shire took roughly 150 pages and consisted of hobbits walking, cowering in the bushes because the Nazgul came by, and pissing themselves in fear. 150 pages and there was no plot development, no character development, no action, or anything else of substance!
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.
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.