Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

The Hobbit... w/o Jackson

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by dcwilson26, Jan 1, 2007.

  1. dcwilson26

    dcwilson26 MSC Knight

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    Since we are naming off movies we want to see... here's the one I've waited forever for. And after all this waiting, it looks like New Line is going to completely screw it up. Here's the website tracking all the latest news in case any of you guys care as much as I do about seeing Peter Jackson bring Middle Earth to life again in a film version of The Hobbit.

    http://derhobbit-film.de/indexengl.shtml

    As of right now, New Line is looking into directors other than Peter Jackson because they can't come to an agreement with him over an outstanding lawsuit over money owed to him from the first LotR movie. New Line has the production rights to the movie and MGM has the distribution rights. The plans were originally to have two Hobbit movies which would delve into the history and appendicies of the much linear Hobbit book. While MGM seems to realize how fans might react to a non-PJ Hobbit film, New Line seems oblivious. Apparently New Line's rights will fall back to some independant production company soon so they are looking to rush the film into production before their rights expire.

    For those who loved the LotR movie like I did, I would hate to see a Hobbit film that had a look, feel, and sound that differs from the original films. Getting a new director for the film would most likely result in Weta Digital not being the FX company and would certainly not have the same sets for locations like Hobbiton and Rivendell. Also, I doubt that the returning roles would include actors like Ian McKellon, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Andy Serkis, Marton Csokas, and possibly Viggo Mortenson and Orlando Bloom; since some of these actors have voiced their opposition to New Line seeking another director. Also, the wonderful music of Howard Shore would likely not be heard again in this new Middle Earth. Shore revealed that he had been in talks with PJ before the split with New Line and had already started working on new themes for The Hobbit.

    I really hope that this is just a really bad bluff on the part of New Line because I cannot see how they could go through with a "prequal" without the same director as the originals; especially when the originals have won more than a dozen academy awards and have grosed over $3 Billion worldwide. Even Royd Tolkien, the great grandson of JRR Tolkien, as written a letter to New Line expressing his concern over not letting PJ direct the Hobbit. A 4-year old could clearly see that settling a meager million dollar lawsuit to make a possible BILLION dollar film is in the interest of New Line. I truly cannot understand this situation and I can only hope that both sides come to their senses (or MGM puts a gun to the head of the New Line president and gives him an offer he can't refuse.)
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    The trend will continue:

    fellowship > two towers > return of king > hobbit
     
  3. dcwilson26

    dcwilson26 MSC Knight

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    The Hobbit is more about the storytelling and scenery than warfare so I think that The Hobbit will look more closely like the Fellowship than the RotK.
     
  4. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Shades of gray my friend. Whatever drop-off there is from Fellowship to Return is very small. I suspect that your trend follows the movies' chronological release is not a coincidence. It is common for most people to have a subconcious loyalty to their first exposure to something. How many people remember the second time they had sex?

    Certainly the decline is not as large as the drop off from say, Star Wars IV/V/VI (which I will group together) to I to II to III. (III was the nadir of Lucas's entire career. Two hours of ILM projectile vomiting and a huge opportunity lost to truly explore and define one of the iconic characters of modern American cinema. What a waste. But I digress.)
     
  5. Calendryll

    Calendryll MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    52
    Market Rating:
    0
    I predict they will work something out. Any Tolkien film made now by any other than Jackson will be a huge mistake and they know it. I've already read some articles with Jackson saying he hopes they can work out a deal.
     
  6. OsIriS

    OsIriS Peasant

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    5
    Market Rating:
    0
    You know, DCWilson, that most of the actors you named that wouldn't be involved, wouldn't be involved anyway. Galadriel, Saruman, Legolas, Aragorn, Celeborn, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Samwise none of whom show up in the Hobbit. The Hobbit is an entirely different style of writing and story from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. And it's story should be told differently.

    With that being said, an Andy Serkis-less Gollum would most likely be utter crap. Bilbo in Gollum's cave is the one scene in the book that I would actually pay to see this movie for if it's done right.
     
  7. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Fellowship was as near to a perfect movie as any I have ever seen and I think one of the major reasons was its loyalty to the source material. Things were left out in the first movie, but there were no fundamental changes to the story. This changed in The Two Towers and The Return of the King and I think it definitely shows. I am no insanely loyal fanboy to Tolkien, I could care less about things such as Tom Bombadil and Elves at Helmsdeep, but when you change such key elements as the nature of Gollum, the house of healing with Faramir and Eowyn, the final stand at the Black Gate, and the destruction of the Ring and Sauron you are fundamentally changing the series, for the worse in my opinion.

    The comparision with the Star Wars prequel "stuff" just goes to show how great the Lord of the Rings truly was and its a damn shame that Jackson won't be doing the Hobbit. But honestly, who really cares about an adaptation of a work originally written for an 8-year-old. Give me even a few pages of Silmarilion adaptation and I will be happy for a damn long time.
     
  8. dcwilson26

    dcwilson26 MSC Knight

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    10
    Market Rating:
    0
    Like I said before though, the Hobbit is being split into two movies so it can delve into the history behind the LotR. Therefore you would have Galadriel, Saruman, Celeborn and Elrond at the White Council. Also, Legolas is the son of Thanduril the king of the woodland elves so he could very well be part of the movie (just to add more star power, his character is never mentioned by name). Aragorn could possibly be in some scenes depending on how far they wish to delve into the history beyond the timeline of the original Hobbit book, although that would be quite a stretch. The other hobbits I never mentioned because I know they weren't even born when the Hobbit takes place and Ian Holm is too old to play Bilbo although they could use him in scenes towards the end or as he tells the story of the Hobbit.

    A Peter Jackson Hobbit would most likely retain the PG-13 visualization and story-telling from the LotR movies so you don't have to worry about the film looking like a children's story. Also, with the addition of the historical material found in the Histories of Middle Earth but not in the Hobbit book, the story would have a very Silmarillion type feel to it. I would be especially interested in the scene about the White Council, Saruman's reluctance, and the eventual expultion of Sauron from Murkwood.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2007
  9. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Admittedly it's been quite a while since I read the books, but all of the events you mention as I recall, were fairly close to the book. Well the house of healing scene is not in the theatrical version IIRC, but it is in the extended version. Not sure what is changed about the nature of Gollum, the character seemed pretty true to the book to me. The destruction of the ring was talked about by Peter Jackson, he always thought it was silly that Gollum just fell off if that's what you're talking about. I liked that scene very much the way it was filmed, with Gollum and Frodo falling together struggling for the ring. Seemed more "realistic" to me.
     
  10. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Gollum was a character that even at the last moment was meant to be pitied and given mercy. When Sam looses Frodo on the climb up to Mount Doom, he once again shows mercy and allows Gollum to live even after the betrayals earlier with Shelob, etc. And when Peter Jackson makes comments like that he is reinterpreting the original source material. Frodo, once Gollum takes the ring, does not and should not charge him again for the ring. He just had his finger bitten off and never truly wanted the ring for himself even at the very end. Gollum shows him, by taking it, yet again that the One Ring is an utterly corrupting item. One of the key lines of the entire series is when Sam and Frodo are sitting in the destruction of Mount Doom moments before the Eagles come to pick them up and Frodo, harking back to what Gandalf says as they are making their way through the Mines of Moria, comments that without Gollum the ring could have never been destroyed and tells Sam to forgive him and realize this. This scene, in my opinion, was set up wonderfully in Moria but the vision of it didn't continue to the last film.

    As to the house of the healing, I realize it was in the Directors Cut, but even there I think it is pretty wrong and ill concieved. There is no real closure to the Eowyn & Faramir stuff, a story that Tolkien did much better job fleshing out.

    The final stand at the black gate and the destruction of Sauron were two of the biggest failures though in my mind. The glorification of Merry AND Pippen at that battle was just ludicrous. That was a major MAJOR rewritting and in my mind unneeded. To have them charge at the end was just overly done cinematic bullshit to me.

    I could bring up a few other things that I have problems with, the list is rather long, but I don't like to be a hater of some of my favorite movies. Again, let me restate that I freakin love all three of these movies. They are absolutely fantastic. I just find that there are far fewer things that I take issue with in Fellowship. It is a better movie because of how closely it sticks to the original source material.
     
  11. Lurk

    Lurk Peasant and Donator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    2,586
    Likes Received:
    47
    Market Rating:
    0
    Fair enough, but I tend more toward judging book-derived movies on their own merits rather than how closely they match the source literature, simply because it's a different format with different needs. What makes for a good read does not necessarily make for a good movie. The Two Towers is a good example. The movie was structured so that the battle at Helm's Deep was the climactic scene, and it spanned an hour of film. If I recall, in the book the battle is a mere two pages long. But movies need to follow a certain formula, a gradual progression toward a climax (behave Jake), and there needs to be a payoff for a movie audience that does not necessarily need to be there for a reader. Call it "cinematic bullshit" if you like, but spending hours of film fleshing out characters simply because that's what Tolkein did would have made for a boring movie.

    And with movies, some things need to simply be left out due to time constraints. Faramir and Eowyn is a nice side story, but in the end has very little to do with the main plot. Same with Tom Bombadil and the encounter with the Barrow Wight. Those scenes didn't advance the main plot at all. Yeah, in a book I can do whatever I want because there's no limit to how many pages I choose to include. A movie does not have that luxury. The theatrical versions were already 3 hours long, even with a lot left out. Tangential story lines are the logical sacrifice.
     
  12. Kalgareth

    Kalgareth Peasant

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2000
    Messages:
    541
    Likes Received:
    2
    Market Rating:
    0
    Helms Deep was a near perfect adaptation. They took those two pages and made a great hour of film with very minimalistic changes to the structure originally in the book.

    I completely disagree that it would have taken "hours of a film" to fill in major character arcs. Fellowship is THE counter to that argument. They took the time, were very true to the original source material, and made a damn good movie. You cannot justify cutting things or changing things with the catch all of "it would have been a boring movie if we didn't." True cinematic mastery balances those needs in order to achieve a vision that is suitable to the director and author alike. With Gollum in particular I think Jackson seriously dropped the ball when he didn't need to.

    I would also take serious issue with your insinuating that authors can take as long as they like because they have no concern for length. Great books are always critically examined by their authors. Things are cut and the book is revised over and over again. Lord of the Rings was written for an audience. It wasn't some history of the fall of the Roman Empire that required 10,000 pages to record.

    Its not the necessity of characters to plot advancement that concerns me. I agree with you somewhat on the Faramir and Eowyn thing. Its the fact that the plot was changed to advance character pieces that were not found in the original material. Your not cutting things because of length or because of relevance, your cutting them to make room for your rewritting of the story.

    I guess what I am trying to say is you can do both. You can be respectful of THE Fantasy novels of the 20th Century and make three jaw dropping materpiece movies at the same time. With Fellowship Jackson proved it. With The Two Towers and The Return of the King this respect was lost in my mind. The movies were great but god they could have been better, they could have been absolutely EPIC.
     

Hitometer: 54,588,886 since 1995