Peter Jackson may not be directing The Hobbit afterall

[Neosutra]

@ Bethany:

I didnt mean in apperance, more in the way he faught and acted. Instead of destroying mountains with his thoughts... he swang a really big mace... ooohhhh scary.

I guess swinging your mace and knocking 50 or so soldiers away with each blow doesn't qualify as "epic".

Ya, that epically represents the hulk in a fight. Sauron was a damned demi-god that used his magic to woopass. In that movie he was just really strong >.>

[Dezzimal]

I always look at Book to Movie films as retelling of a story. I judge them not on whether the story was told 100% accurately, but on whether it was told well. Lord of the Rings was wonderful. I would rather watch something entertaining and entirely inaccurate, than watch a documentary of the life of a hobbit.

[Fhqwghads]

All I can say is if PJ was the best person to direct the films, the films should have never been made. It's like watching a corny bubblegum version of the books. The movies had their moments, which were few and far between (Balrog... that was probably the best scene out of all 3 movies.) The rest of it was horribly butchered and as someone stated earlier, the cheesy acting was awful. Slap music that at times was so annoying I almost want to mute the movie (if I hear another pan flute or whatever that fuck that was I will lose my mind), and it pretty much ruins what Tolkien painted so vividly.

And it's not about Bombadil. Fuck Bombadil, I couldn't care less if he was in it. It's about changing things that absolutely, positively did not need to be changed, as well as the other bullet points I listed above. I still appreciate (to a degree) seeing Middle Earth brought to life on the big screen, but there was so many glaring errors in the film I can't say they were good. Hopefully before I die someone else will take the reigns and do it again, and do it right.

[Stilgar]

All I can say is if PJ was the best person to direct the films, the films should have never been made. It's like watching a corny bubblegum version of the books. The movies had their moments, which were few and far between (Balrog... that was probably the best scene out of all 3 movies.) The rest of it was horribly butchered and as someone stated earlier, the cheesy acting was awful. Slap music that at times was so annoying I almost want to mute the movie (if I hear another pan flute or whatever that fuck that was I will lose my mind), and it pretty much ruins what Tolkien painted so vividly.

And it's not about Bombadil. Fuck Bombadil, I couldn't care less if he was in it. It's about changing things that absolutely, positively did not need to be changed, as well as the other bullet points I listed above. I still appreciate (to a degree) seeing Middle Earth brought to life on the big screen, but there was so many glaring errors in the film I can't say they were good. Hopefully before I die someone else will take the reigns and do it again, and do it right.

I disagree with everything you said here. Question: has there ever been a book to movie adaptation that pleased you?

[Lordender]

you guys are on some serious fucking crack if you say the LoTR movies sucked, i mean some serious, very serious shit. We will never see a movie like that again in our lifetimes.

[Kurp]

I always look at Book to Movie films as retelling of a story. I judge them not on whether the story was told 100% accurately, but on whether it was told well. Lord of the Rings was wonderful. I would rather watch something entertaining and entirely inaccurate, than watch a documentary of the life of a hobbit.

I've never heard anyone say they looked at it like that, but I like it.

I hope the Hobbit movie keeps that lighthearted, humorous, yet epic feel that the book has. It's sooo not LoTR, there's no doomy-gloomy feel.

[Mysterio]

apparently paying Peter JAckson a quarter of a Billion dollars for the 3 LoTR's wasn't enough.

He's wanting outragous coin for the Hobbit apparently. And they kicked him to the curb.

[Tekki]

Have any of you guys that can't stand the PJ LoTR films gone out and watched the Extended Edition of the series.

I sat through all of the interviews and every bit of the extra content. Im not the biggest "Ive read the books 1000 times" fan but I got the idea that every single person on not only the directing team, but also the acting team, character creation, and even the workshop building the sets and all of the armor, were just as big of fans as you were. Some of the content they left out seemed to have been debated for days before being finalized. Im pretty sure they wrote the script many many more times then what most, or I would safely argue, ANY script has been re-written. Go through the extra content guys. All your concerns that I've heard you argue over have been addressed in interviews. Everything they cut/added seemed to be very necessary to make this book series a purely entertaining retelling of the LoTR stories. (They even spend a hour talking about why they cut Bombadil out.)

I've only read the books a few times and the biggest thing that stood out to me after reading the books was how you could chop large portions of it out and make it a lot thinner. Its so long winded that at some points you just skip over a description of yet another forest. There are sections you can flat out skip and you won't miss anything important. For those who think sitting through 2-3 hours of a unsatisfactory re-hash of the story is unbearable, there are 5 others that would hate to sit through a purely Tolkein photocopy version of the movie. You could spend 5 hours with the Fellowship of the ring, movie style, and still haven't formed The Fellowship. What your guys are doing is denying the glaring fact that you CAN NOT make a picture perfect replica of the LoTR books.

[Lbelle]

All I can say is if PJ was the best person to direct the films, the films should have never been made. It's like watching a corny bubblegum version of the books. The movies had their moments, which were few and far between (Balrog... that was probably the best scene out of all 3 movies.) The rest of it was horribly butchered and as someone stated earlier, the cheesy acting was awful. Slap music that at times was so annoying I almost want to mute the movie (if I hear another pan flute or whatever that fuck that was I will lose my mind), and it pretty much ruins what Tolkien painted so vividly.

And it's not about Bombadil. Fuck Bombadil, I couldn't care less if he was in it. It's about changing things that absolutely, positively did not need to be changed, as well as the other bullet points I listed above. I still appreciate (to a degree) seeing Middle Earth brought to life on the big screen, but there was so many glaring errors in the film I can't say they were good. Hopefully before I die someone else will take the reigns and do it again, and do it right.

I disagree with everything you said here.

I disagree with everything you said here too. You couldn't possibly ever make films that were better than these Fqhfsjdhawhateveryournameis. The amount of work that went into them, and went into writing the script was astronomical. The academy noticed it when they gave it the best adaptation award, I mean...you have to understand as a scriptwriter you can't keep EVERYTHING from the BOOK the same as the MOVIE. Movies are supposed to let you see things you imagined in the books, and I think LOTR caught most of, if not all, of that very well.

[Krandor]

you guys are on some serious fucking crack if you say the LoTR movies sucked, i mean some serious, very serious shit. We will never see a movie like that again in our lifetimes.

They were good movies but they aren't what I would call something we will "never see again in our lifetimes." They were obviously the best adaptations yet but Fagwads is half right about a few things. The acting dragged at times, and alot of scenes seemed needlessly long, and there was alot of music too cheesy for it's own good.

Not saying in any way I dislike them, I own all 3 expanded editions, but they aren't as godly as some people would like to think or claim.

[theo]

What irritates me the most is that they are planning not one, but two new movies. One is, obvioulsy, The Hobbit.

The other movie? Oh yeah, its... a prequel. To the trilogy.

All I can say is, whatever they come up with had better be cannon Tolkien and not some bullshit hollywood garbage.

[Fhqwghads]

I disagree with everything you said here too. You couldn't possibly ever make films that were better than these Fqhfsjdhawhateveryournameis. The amount of work that went into them, and went into writing the script was astronomical. The academy noticed it when they gave it the best adaptation award, I mean...you have to understand as a scriptwriter you can't keep EVERYTHING from the BOOK the same as the MOVIE. Movies are supposed to let you see things you imagined in the books, and I think LOTR caught most of, if not all, of that very well.

It's not my job to make movies, so of course I couldn't do better. The point is, PJ didn't do that great of a job at it, and seeing that LotR has been voted the Book of the Century (which it most certainly deserves) on top of some of the most vivid imagery a writer has ever been able to paint in the minds of millions, it was his duty to preserve as much as he could. In that regard he failed. There were key elements that would not have taken anything away from the film adaptation, yet he unwisely chose to take liberties and change them with results that were so far off from what Tolkien intended it was irritating. Not to mention the actors sucked ass for the most part. Elijah Wood made me want to punch him in the face for the one-dimensional deer-caught-in-the-headlights acting he did. That's just the tip of the iceberg, and I won't go on because the list of things I found cheesy and annoying would only bore people.

So like I stated: the movies were not only unfaithful to the books in many ways and without reason, but the bad acting and bad scriptwriting combined to make something that should have been a cinematic triumph into a mediocre (at best) way to kill a few hours.

Taking a stab at my stupid online name as well as "well you couldn't do any better" are pretty lame attempts to bolster your opinion. A) I have no emotional ties to my name. B) I suppose all those magazines, books, and television shows which review and rate everything from movies to hotels don't have a leg to stand on because the people expressing their opinions have never directed a movie or built a hotel, huh? You're free to disagree with me of course, but I have my views on it as well. I don't feel like I have to make fun of your name or fire shots at you like "you couldn't do any better." You liked the movies, I found them disappointing. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Rosencrantz]

LOTR adapatation sucked, and that's clearly cos of PJ directing. I loved books, not a fan though.

And i've seen so many better book > movie adaptation than this it's not something to argue about.
Every single actor is ridiculous and bad. And if i want to see huge battlefields
i would rather go play Rome or Medieval total war and play it.

To me LOTR trilogy is horrible like Star Wars 1-3 are. What Lucas got for him that PJ doesn't is that at least, he created story and made everything by himself.

Fuck, it makes me vomit.

[Lbelle]

Taking a stab at my stupid online name as well as "well you couldn't do any better" are pretty lame attempts to bolster your opinion. A) I have no emotional ties to my name. B) I suppose all those magazines, books, and television shows which review and rate everything from movies to hotels don't have a leg to stand on because the people expressing their opinions have never directed a movie or built a hotel, huh? You're free to disagree with me of course, but I have my views on it as well. I don't feel like I have to make fun of your name or fire shots at you like "you couldn't do any better." You liked the movies, I found them disappointing. There's nothing wrong with that.

I didn't call your name stupid, I just didn't feel like looking to see the exact spelling, since your name is rather awkward to me. And sorry to try to have a rational debate with you. Of course you aren't a director, however you keep saying that PJ, who is a director, did a bad job, and I'm saying if you had such an immense job I doubt you would have done better. And again I disagree with all the points that you found disappointing in the movies. And like you said, there's nothing wrong with that. [/quote]

[Rosencrantz]

I'm not here to taunt you or shit, but i did cinema studies and i can tell you LOTR could have been way better adapted.

Sure it's lots of work. But with all the money PJ had to make it, it could have been wayyyy better.

First, cast is really poor and some scenes made me laugh really hard, when it was obviously "dramatic". I know i never laughed on some really great movies because actor playstyle and general atmosphere just makes you feel bad.

Second, did they really need to focus on such large battlegrounds like they did? No. I think it was at #2 end that there's some big "epic" battle. I fell asleep :/.

Third, like fjkfhjgfjy or w/e said PJ took the liberty to modify stuff, and it was just too much.

Secret of a good adaptation is perfect cast, little modifications to make it interesting for people who knows book to keep it interesting as well as focus on important moments and make it better than book, sensation/suspense wise, and that's what cinema helps you to do.
It's all about balance. PJ just didnt give a shit, and that's why LOTR fails horribly. Best adaptation i ever seen was "The Shining" from King to Kubrick, and god knows how Kubrick took liberties on original book.

[Dezzimal]

I can do better than peter jackson.

I expect a rough draft by monday.

[Kyreth]

Doesn't sound as "epic" as LoTR, but I guess it could still be ok.

It's not as "epic" but it's still a great story. And come on, DRAGON!

Smaug is the freaking definition of "dragon" in my book. Burns out a kingdom of dwarves, armored in his own treasure horde, evil and cunning, content to sleep on his epic pile of loot until some fool burglar lifts a few trinkets and fools him into thinking it's the town below that lifted em.

Plus there's the huge multi-army battle at the end. The Hobbit does stay much more focused on one small group than the hop-around plot of LoTR. If anything, it might be better adapted than LoTR was.

[Resin]

Doesn't sound as "epic" as LoTR, but I guess it could still be ok.

It's not as "epic" but it's still a great story. And come on, DRAGON!

Smaug is the freaking definition of "dragon" in my book. Burns out a kingdom of dwarves, armored in his own treasure horde, evil and cunning, content to sleep on his epic pile of loot until some fool burglar lifts a few trinkets and fools him into thinking it's the town below that lifted em.

Plus there's the huge multi-army battle at the end. The Hobbit does stay much more focused on one small group than the hop-around plot of LoTR. If anything, it might be better adapted than LoTR was.

I agree that The Hobbit does a lot to cement what a dragon should be in peoples' minds. Whether it'll be adapted well or not remains to be seen, but it should certainly be easier than TLotR.

[Minions]

So who wants to name a movie they were perfectly happy with that came from a book? Oh.... wait there isnt one I liked the movies and the books and I think people are too stuck on how many things are not in the movies, compared to the books. And even if you post some movie you were happy with I guarentee you theres people that will complain and find problems with it, you can never make everyone happy. These movies were rated very highly by ALOT of people. And its a Movie, a REPRESENTATION of how someone felt it should be shown.

[Merovingian]

i really like the LOTR movie, only thing i didnt like is that on the 3rd one they didnt say anything about Saruman, unless u read the book or see the ext. version u dont know what happen to him.He was a big char in movie to not even show him once in last one.