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
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
And that is why you don't make movies and Peter Jackson does.
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...
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.