Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Part 5: Quint and Peter Jackson talk THE HOBBIT and a potential return to low budget horror!!!

first yay !!! by giger167	Sep 16th, 2006 08:08:54 AM
lalalalala
I'm amazed no one has called about the Hobbit yet. by Mahaloth	Sep 16th, 2006 08:12:19 AM
Holywood can be moronic.
Jackson HAS to make The Hobbit by mattyholmes	Sep 16th, 2006 08:26:40 AM
no question about it. It would feel dirty like cheating on him if somebody else was to do it. www.obsessedwithfilm.com
great interview by misnomer	Sep 16th, 2006 08:30:26 AM
although I actually like the idea of "the hobbit" being a kids film....the future doesn't look that great for Jackson doing it though......out of all these, I'm most excited weta's involvement with cameron's avatar
Peter Jackson's ideas for The Hobbit sound awful. by brolly	Sep 16th, 2006 08:30:36 AM
The Hobbit is shorter than the first 'Rings' book so making two movies out of it is a complete waste of time. Structually it fits into one film better than any of the Lord of the Rings movies did, with a perfect action climax. Why the hell would you want to make it into another LOTR? Why not keep it as a childrens tale. Doing something tonally different would be far more interesting and it can still be epic without involving Aragorn and all the big themes of the LOTR trilogy. I was very interested in Jackson directing The Hobbit before but now it seems like he would ruin what could be a wonderful magical film by turning it in to a horrible monstrosity of a franchise.
2 movies? by Kizeesh	Sep 16th, 2006 08:35:56 AM
I'm quite intrigued by this idea, it has some potential, and to be honest I think the Hobbit (as a film) would benefit vastly from being expanded to include Aragorn, Saruman et al. You could call them The Hobbit and There and Back again, see ready made titles. Still Quint was right, Get Christopher Lee's footage done ASAP. Much as I love the old bastard, he won't be with us too much longer :( and give him a knighthood as well.
MGM & NEW LINE! WAKE UP AND ASK HIM YOU FUCKERS!! by The Ender	Sep 16th, 2006 08:35:59 AM
Before it is too late, MAKE THE GOD DAMN PHONE CALL! OFFER HIM THE RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY! JESUS, WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Sue you, Jackson, I just wet my pants! by Grenouille	Sep 16th, 2006 09:10:15 AM
Thanx for devolving me into a giggling schoolgirl. Err, schoolboy. Let the story breathe, delve into all the thematic aspects Tolkien didn't venture into because, as we all know, he was not allowed to given the parameters he himself constructed for "The Hobbit". Alas, move fast, Master Jackson, because Sir Ian will stop filming any one of the days. You know what he says about THE PLAY, once he did it there's no stone left unturned. Though I guess, Gandalf might lure him in front of a camera again, since he obviously enjoyed the stay in NZ. Interviewed him once for X3, and he got all wet eyed once he stopped and though about LOTR and the time he shared with you guys. Brought a tear to my eyes as well. Move fast, or you'll lose him and possibly Sir Christopher (as it should be), making all these efforts not worthwile.
Ugh, expanding The Hobbit is a terrible idea by rev_skarekroe	Sep 16th, 2006 09:13:14 AM
Part of its charm is that it's so tonally different from Lord of the Rings. Bilbo's story is very different from Frodo's - he has no idea that he's actually involved in events that are shaping the future of Middle Earth. And frankly, every single thing that was wrong with the LotR films was due to something Jackson and Co. changed from the books, so I don't have much confidence in the quality of any expansions they would make.
ANOTHER box set for LOTR??? by JohnGalt06	Sep 16th, 2006 09:19:41 AM
Jesus H., this quadruple-dipping must stop. I don't think it's effective over such a short period of time anyway. Did anyone actually buy that latest release of the LOTR movies? As for THE HOBBIT, would another actor besides Ian Holm play Bilbo? I love the man dearly but he's old! Maybe Weta can do digital make-up to make him look younger. Splitting it up into two movies just seems silly. You could make THE HOBBIT in one two-hour movie and cover all the bases. One last note--glad to see that Jackson realizes his script for KONG was lacking. PJ PLEASE, release a shorter version of the movie that I will actually watch from time to time. Bought KONG on DVD, watched it once and have had absolutely no desire to watch it again...
More DVD Box Sets... by movieman742	Sep 16th, 2006 09:32:18 AM
And people are pissed at Lucas for all his Star Wars releases. Haha, such hipocrates.
I hope Jackson realizes... by sckbassg3	Sep 16th, 2006 09:42:09 AM
...how much the fans want him to make the Hobbit when he takes into consideration if he is going to accept it or turn it down. It wouldn't feel right having anybody else do it, I can't say that it would land a spot next to my LOTR trilogy if he doesn't do it.
Jackson has the right idea about The Hobbit by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 09:51:12 AM
The story would benefit so much if the White Council scenes were included in the story. It makes the story more epic and connects it the overall Lord of the Rings saga. It also helps to explain why Gandalf was so eager to kill Smaug (he was afraid that the newly reborn Sauron would recruit him for his army of evil) and why Orcs and Wargs are suddenly reforming and on the warpath. These additions will do nothing to hinder the story but will add so much. Also the characters Gimli, Legolas, Galadriel, Arwen, and Aragorn could very easily be incorporated into this film.
rev skarekroe by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 09:53:02 AM
Your right BILBO shouldn't know about Gandalf's true motives (to destroy Smaug and check Sauron's power) but scenes can be shown of Gandalf doing this on the side (which is what happens in the book).
Put the Hobbit on the front burner by gingeracrockford	Sep 16th, 2006 09:57:06 AM
especially if he's planning to include Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett etc. The characters need to look as young or younger than they were in LOTR, if he waits more than a few more years Ian McKellen will be too old, Ian Holm already is. The two film idea sounds like it could work, not sure it's strictly necessary though. As for new casting, how about the following: Young Bilbo: MARTIN FREEMAN Thorin: BRIAN BLESSED Balin: JAMES COSMO Bombur: GREGOR FISHER Bard: STUART TOWNSEND Thranduil: PAUL BETTANY Smaug: RONALD PICKUP (voiced Aslan in the original BBC Narnia series)
when you think about it by DrLektor	Sep 16th, 2006 10:04:54 AM
Wouldn't Aragorn be around 10 years old in the Hobbit? According to the timeline in the appendices of LotR He'd be a kid when Bilbo first visits Rivendell. Any defending of the Shire would have to come a bit later on methinks.
Quint... by Mr.Nelson	Sep 16th, 2006 10:10:15 AM
Some amazing stuff. Thanks.
the hobbit doesn't involve lotr by aestheticity	Sep 16th, 2006 10:34:32 AM
it was written years before, as a kids book, before tolkien had a tenth the ideas he had in lotr. it happens to share some characters, thats all. there is no 'gandalf checking saurons power' story unless you imagine it. the only value in a hobbit film is as a nice little, simple prelude to lord of the rings. 1 filmsworth of it. besides, for all smaugs badass dragonness, iirc he gets killed by a minor characters arrow before he really goes to town. that's anticlimactic. theres no way theres 2 films in it.
Hmm... by moose4787	Sep 16th, 2006 10:34:54 AM
Does anyone else that this sort of sounds like lucas venturing down the prequals road. Next thing you know PJ will be rereleasing special editions with sceans not even filmed. Some how theyll make Argorn look like a wimp and not a dark ranger by having someone at the bar shoot first thus making hime not such a bad guy.
Make sure you get Christopher Lee on film... by zacdilone	Sep 16th, 2006 10:36:25 AM
...BEFORE HE'S DEAD!!! Nice tact there, Quint.
I'm looking forward to the TEMERAIRE series. by TheButcher	Sep 16th, 2006 10:40:03 AM
PJ please get to work on a live action version of Neon Genesis Evangelion!!
I like his Hobbit ideas by performingmonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 10:44:13 AM
Let's face it, a straight children's movie adaptation of The Hobbit would be OK, but looking at it in the same way as LOTR would be preferrable. In the book Gandalf sort of fucks off halfway through and when he comes back at the end he just says he's been 'here and there' or whatever, but we know from LOTR that he, Saruman, Galadriel and the others that made up the White Council (with Saruman as leader - this is just before or just as he was becoming corrupt) had a meeting and together they cast out the evil from Southern Mirkwood which, at the time, they didn't know was Sauron starting to build himself up. He held the fortress of Dol Guldur (or whatever). They HAVE to include that Dol Guldur stuff alongside Bilbo's story. Two movies of around the length of FOTR would be much better than an insanely long single movie. Even if Jackson doesn't direct he should be involved, and it should be made in this way.
Book to film by cyberskunk	Sep 16th, 2006 10:47:47 AM
I'd prefer that if a live-action Hobbit got made, it kept the tone of the book. I think making it less like a children's book would really undercut the intent with which it was written as well as the mood in the book and the author's voice and etc.
Make this movie for the kids, not the adults by old_toby	Sep 16th, 2006 10:56:02 AM
If you've ever read The Hobbit out loud to a child (as I have to my two sons, ages 7 and 10), you'll see how appealing the story is at a young person's level. Give this movie to the kids. In The Hobbit, the dwarves look and act differently than in the LOTR, what with their colored hoods, long noses, beards that touch the ground when they bow. They carry their instruments with them on their journey, and break into song at times. No PG-13 rating please, or many of these kids won't even be able to see it. Keep It Simple and don't turn a wonderful children's story into the prequels. Or at least save all the politics and council stuff for the director's cut DVD.
It is weird thinking about Hobbit without PJ... by brycemonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 11:03:00 AM
Just shows what a great job he did on LOTR that it seems almost impossible that he wouldn't direct Hobbit. If it ever gets made that is...
quite right aestheticity by DrLektor	Sep 16th, 2006 11:03:54 AM
at least until Tolki went back and revised the Hobbit to fit his growing mythology. From then on the Ring had a source, the characters had a hidden purpose and yeah, the two stories became part of one big tale.
Some thoughts... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 11:09:37 AM
I think PJ & Co. should be responsible for bringing "The Hobbit" to the big screen simply for continuity & quality's sake. It just wouldn't feel right if another director (and actors) was involved. It would break the overall consistency in tone. And I don't think it's necessary to split the story into 2 films. *** That being said, if PJ does accept this job, the whole production better get a move on. You've got that cheesy Sci-Fi Channel looking flick, "Eragon", on the way. And now that PJ has optioned this "TEMERAIRE" thing, that makes 2 dragon-themed productions in the works. WETA is going to have their work cut out for them in creating a kick-ass, monstrous dragon with Smaug. And I'm sure we can all agree, Smaug (the Magnificent) has got to look like the mother-of-all-dragons.
I trust him by sithlard	Sep 16th, 2006 11:12:38 AM
I have always thought that only one HOBBIT film would get made, since there is only one book, and it is not as dense. Saying that, however, I trust that if Peter Jackson and his team did this film that they would make the two-film idea work. I love the idea of expanding on some of the things only mentioned in THE HOBBIT and taking the film and making it feel more like THE LORD OF THE RINGS "tonally." It has always worried me that THE HOBBIT will feel somewhat disconnected if they write it to feel like the book does. THE HOBBIT always feels disconnected because it was written more for kids and written years earlier that LOTR. I'd like it to feel a bit more grown up and connected with LOTR. No matter what, it will not be on the same scale. But the tone, I think, should resemble the tone they had for THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING. If THE HOBBIT feels like FOTR does, I think it will work wonderfully. I do not know how I feel about someone else doing this project, which it is looking more likely that this will be the case since Jackson has a billion projects already lined up. I want THE HOBBIT to feel like the LOTR films do, and I am afraid that the only way this will happen is if Jackson does them. So my hope is that whoever is chosen to helm the project will be an extremely talented director who can figure out how to emmulate what Jackson did for LOTR, particularly FOTR. Also, Hobbiton should be built the same way it was before, with similar design and filmed at the same location as before. The other isssue is that I want any characters that were in the LOTR films that are in THE HOBBIT to be played by the same actors. Ian Holm, however is too old and I do not know how it would work having him play a younger Biblo. But I still hope that somehow they can make it work with Holm in the part. And if Saruman is included, no one but Christopher Lee seems right and he is probably going to die soon. I'm with Quint in saying that they should just shoot 10 minutes of Saruman with Lee right now. I think everyone else could come back though. McKellen, Mortensen, Tyler, etc. This is truly quite a task for anyone who takes it on. It would be the easiest to pull it off right if Jackson would do it, as far as getting the right look and feel for the film(s). But as far as scheduling, it would be easier to get another director. But getting the actual film to live up to the LOTR films would be harder.
old_toby-- To hell with the children! by ZeroCorpse	Sep 16th, 2006 11:16:45 AM
There is enough for kids out there. They have whole channels, fergoshsakes! Disney, Toon Disney, Cartoon Network 75% of the time, Nickelodeon. . . And as far as movies go, you can do serious and still appeal to kids. Narnia, Harry Potter, etc. all handle this just fine. Frankly, I think aiming The Hobbit at kids is a bad move. The audience isn't going to be children- It will be people who grew up with Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. If kids want The Hobbit, they can watch the old Rankin-Bass animated flick. I've put up with that thing as my only version of The Hobbit for way too long. It's time they made something that makes me happy as an adult, dammit. The Hobbit as a more mature film won't take away from you being able to read and use funny voices for kids.
make it....NOW !!! by giger167	Sep 16th, 2006 11:17:56 AM
Love the hobbit and would dearly love to see it filmed by Peter Jackson. Wasn't the beginning of fellowship tonally different to the rest of the trilogy, didn't stop that film from acheiving greatness, and the book features many epic portents that could be expanded without ruining the narrative so why not extend to two films. Is there another director alive you would rathewr see this book filmed by ? As for the imminent high-def transfer of the lord of the rings, having seen some German 1080 files for the films all I can see is that they were astounding quality, so good in fact not buying them become a redundant argument :)
I will have more respect for PJ when... by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 11:26:10 AM
He starts making up his own ideas into movies again. I hate that Hollywood has become so unoriginal. Everything is either a sequel, remake, comic book or other adaptation of some kind. It's like they're setting out to stifle as much imagination as possible. Heavenly Creatures is still his best movie because it's the most that's uniquely his. We should pride directors and writers for their originality rather than their high-priced hollywood-epic clusterbombs. But hey, if it grosses $400 mil, who gives a fuck?
What about Holm?... by Dolph	Sep 16th, 2006 11:38:47 AM
You dropped the ball there, Quint...it led right into it, ". I have zero interest in directing a Gandalf who wasn't Ian McKellen for instance", well, what about Holm. I'd love to have heard Jackson's thoughts, you know he's thought about it. CGI de-age? New actor (and replacing the flashback in LOTR). Btw, I hate the second idea. Otherwise, great interview, cheers Quint!
"The Script Should be born out of the Visuals" ???? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 11:45:44 AM
That's an insane, ass-backwards way of writing a script. It's all focused on the visuals first, and screwing with the story to showcase cool effects that have already been imagined, as opposed to coming up with coolest ways to support a kickass script visually. This totally punctures anything Jackson says about wanting to remedy past errors and not start filming until they have a great script. Because the script is already, in his mind, subordinate to the visual elements.
OBVIOUSLY He doesn't WANT to do the Hobbit... by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:11:35 PM
... which is why MGM put out that press release. They've been getting zero feedback or enthusiasm from Jackson, even though they really would prefer him to do it. He said he didn't want to do it right after LOTR, because he was burnt out on LOTR, and 2 years later he's still not into it, and it's not going to be a practical thing any more. It's a big relief off my mind, but you Jackson fans who feel he MUST do it to maintain continuity ... doesn't look like it's going to happen.
Whoa there Mr. N by King Sweyn Forkbeard	Sep 16th, 2006 12:18:24 PM
What's the big problem with filming adaptations? 95% of Stanley Kubrick's output was an adaptation of some form or another and you don't hear anyone bitching about that.
As much as I like Jackson... by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:21:17 PM
I'd be interested in seeing what somebody like Alfonso Cuaron or Peter Weir could do with The Hobbit.
Mr. N, I for one don't mind book adaptations. by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:25:33 PM
Adapting a novel or a work of non-fiction is not a bad thing at all, and is actually a return to what Hollywood has always done best since the beginning of movies. Birth of a Nation after all was a book before Griffith adapted it.
How about Cuaron, who did Prisoner of Azkaban? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:28:09 PM
He'd be an awesome director for the Hobbit. I wonder who wrote the script for that? As I remember, Cuaron was very involved in the script, which a good director needs to be.
Oh, Orbots beat me to the punch about Cuaron. by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 12:31:11 PM
Seconded, Seconded.
Noooo! Don't do it! NOT TWO MOVIES! by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 12:42:45 PM
The Hobbit is nice 1.) because it stands alone, 2.) because it is about a scared little Hobbit learning to love adventure and journeying to far off places, and 3.) fucking Smaug and the greediness of evil dwarves and the Battle of Five Armies. Simple McKee logic, too, in that there is one point of view through the whole story. THE HOBBIT is about THE HOBBIT named Bilbo Baggins. Every scene should be about Bilbo and his quest. Jetting off to the White Council is just plain old bad storytelling.
Crikey these interviews are full of typos! by ulcer	Sep 16th, 2006 12:43:12 PM
they probably pass the spell check check, but there are a lot of repeated verbs, or skipped words that make this thing hard to comprehend at time
I hate 'original' film snobs by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 12:43:36 PM
Go fuck yourselves... then go watch movies before your lifetime or read books and realise that original is like Must See TV in the summers, if you haven't see it, it's new to you. Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy movies.
Azkaban wasn't that good by King Sweyn Forkbeard	Sep 16th, 2006 12:44:04 PM
Visually interesting, but as an adaptation it felt rushed and incomplete, like there were big bits chopped out of it. Ridley Scott could pull it off, but his characterisations aren't the best. If it's going to be LOTR standard then we better hope those crazy kids at New Line and MGM make PJ an offer he simply can't refuse, and sharpish.
as for a director, i say Cauron, as well by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 12:48:14 PM
Or Guillermo Del Toro.
Good Lord, not I don't WANT him to do Hobbit by Gorrister	Sep 16th, 2006 12:52:55 PM
From what Jackson says, he just wants to do a 'reunion' show. Bring back Arwin, Galadriel and Legolas?? Why? They have NOTHING to do with the story of The Hobbit! And although Saruman wourld be cool to see, he also has nothing to do with this story! Fans want to see The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings: The Pre-Reunion. In order to include all of these characters, Jackson would have to take screen time away from the MAIN characters and plot lines.
The Hobbit by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 12:53:43 PM
I'm ok if they at least get Peter Jackson producing The Hobbit the way he is Halo. If he can't direct at least he can make sure it's going the right direction. And in his place? Bring on Alfonso Cuarón. He made The Little Princess and harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban and I think he would be perfect for The Hobbit. I think that he can capture both the sweetness and the danger and the bad assness that a Hobbit movie needs. And The Hobbit IS somewhat tonally different from LOTR and I think Alfonso Cuarón's got that tonal difference from the LOTR movies that would still make it feel apart of the LOTR movies that Peter Jackson made. Plus, they can put up his name as a former Harry Potter helmer and I think people will accept him as a director of The Hobbit if Peter Jackson can't make it. In fact... this is how it should happen. Peter Jackson should produce and have Alfonso Cuarón direct. I have just solved all of our delima with PJs filled schedule. I can 100% imagine PJ sitting down in the theater with his friends and family and a bucket of popcorn to watch Alfonso Cuarón's The Hobbit and loving every single second of it. :) He deserves to get that feeling of just enjoying a Tolkien movie the way he has given to all of us.
I agree, Azkaban was a better book than movie by Gorrister	Sep 16th, 2006 12:55:09 PM
I love the book Prisoner of Azkaban, but Cuaron did't to a good job with it. Not only did he leave gaping plot holes, but his visual style was abolutelyi annoying. Can anyone guess how many times he used that "Iris-In;Iris-Out" dissolve? I can tell you exactly how many times: TOO FUCKING MANY! :P
If you get Cuaron paired with a smart writer like by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 12:58:19 PM
William Goldman (who has experience with fantasy by the way, The Princess Bride) to film The Hobbit, you could have something really special.
Now THAT sounds interesting by DrPeestain	Sep 16th, 2006 01:00:00 PM
While the LOTR films were still coming out, I was extremely excited for a Hobbit movie to come out. Then as time passed, I just didn't care anymore. But after reading Pete's ideas for a Hobbit movie, I pray he gets to make it right after The Lovely Bones! It would be amazing. (fingers crossed that Chris Lee stays alive)
Alfonso Cuarón by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:01:37 PM
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Askaban was almost beneath Alfonso Cuarón to make... it was a total rush job, look at The Little Princess... it was a masterpiece... still the best children's movie ever made and one of my all time favorite movies period. He also has a wonderful eye for color and motion and his movies are amazingly rich and beautiful. When I imagine The Hobbit... I can totally see him being a perfect match. HP3 was good, better than the first 2, but let's face it... it was rushed... but look what he did with it... it's a piece of art... not perfect, but amazing. I am now officially not dreading the inevitable absense of Peter Jackson from The Hobbit and I am officially excited for Peter Jackson to maybe get to enjoy a Tolkien movie himself. I watch Heavenly Creatures and The Little Princess and I see two sides of the same coin in these two directors.
Didn't Tolkien write a prequel to the Hobbit? by J Jonah_Jameson	Sep 16th, 2006 01:06:21 PM
Anyone who has knowledge of that? Because I've read the Hobbit and have never seen alot of the characters Jackson mentions being in it so I was thinking that maybe he read something I didn't? I could be wrong I haven't read it in ages. But I know it would have a huge cast. That is a whole lot of Dwarfs they would need! Also I always pictured The Hobbit being one movie. In comparison too the LOTR books it's not as lengthy. I would love to see this for The Riddles in the Dark chapter alone. That ruled when I first read that when I was little.
emu47 by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:07:32 PM
Guillermo Del Toro... I started to write him too, but then, I remembered his movies... and it's just not possible... sure, he would knock it out of the park, no questions, but what are they going to say 'from the director of Hellboy and Pan's Labrynth'? No way... he deserves to get to make it, but unlike PJ and LOTR, they will have to be able to sell the director for this movie to families... though... hehe... he is more like PJ than anyone else... but i can't see it... well... damn... ok... either Guillermo Del Toro or Alfonso Cuarón... those are the only 2 picks worthy of The Hobbit if PJ turns it down.
Quite right DrLektor. by morGoth	Sep 16th, 2006 01:07:41 PM
Aragorn was only ten when Gandalf and Thorin came to visit Bilbo and set him off on his adventure. As for guarding the Shire, the Rangers didn’t start until another 59 years had passed…Saruman had spies there first though. Although I think two movies could work, I agree that it might open up temptation for too many inventions which created many problems for the LoTR script. I remember PJ saying he was going to show some of the other back story, like the assaults on Lorien/DolGuldur and the fighting around Erebor, but instead we got the warg attack, etc. Not that I didn’t like some of those but it was a needless diversion from the better stories Tolkien had already written. I’d love to see Gandalf sneaking into Dol Guldur, disguised as an orc, and receiving the map and key to Erebor from Thrain. In other words…sticking to what’s already written. As for “'gandalf checking saurons power,” erm, yes, that’s what the Hobbit is all about when looked at from the Big Picture perspective. In fact, The Hobbit is simply a part of the tale of LoTR just as LoTR is a part of the Silmarillion…it’s all one big tale, really. There’s plenty of material for two movies if some back story, particularly from ‘Unfinished Tales,’ is included.
Ok... my final opinion by antonphd	Sep 16th, 2006 01:13:35 PM
Alfonso Cuarón for the first movie that follows the first half of the book... then Guillermo Del Toro for the second half with the giant battles... yeah, it's impossible, but it's the way I really think the movies should be done. The first half of the Hobbit is very different from the second half. I can see the strenths in the 2 directors really shining if they split it up. It's a pipe dream of course. But hell, who cares, it's talkback. let's just hope it's not a hip director, that would be horrible. i'm happy with hip directors for hip movies, but not for beloved treasures of literature.
there's a 'prequel' to the whole shebang by aestheticity	Sep 16th, 2006 01:17:45 PM
in the form of the silmarillion, which is a collection of tolkiens middle earth stuff, which there was a fuckload of, which is set from before the guy who was saurons boss was even around, right up to after sauron got beat like you see at the start of lotr. but it isn't very cohesive, spans a few millennia, and would need visuals i don't even know how you'd go about expressing on film. plus it has a whole bunch of loose ends from even MORE middle earth stuff that isn't collected into it. it's too messy to film.
okay, okay, I got it: by emu47	Sep 16th, 2006 01:28:24 PM
Michael Bay! And maybe Gandalf could paint flames on his face before storming Dol Guldur on his very own custom-made Battle Warg. That flies.
LOL hip directors and Tolkien. by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 01:30:12 PM
Imagine Tarantino, Soderbergh or Robert Rodriguez directing a Tolkien adaptation like The Hobbit? It would probably turn out to be a Rocky Horror type laugh riot and camp-fest.
a response... by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 01:32:57 PM
The number of good adaptations have greately outgrown good originals. I'm just pointing out that we've fallen back on adaptations and as a culture have popularly rejected unique imagination. Look at some of the recent 'original' films that have come out including the number one film at the box office (The Covenant). A shitty film that can be smelled a mile away. This is what originality has developed into. The number of adaptations to originals is way too lopsided in mainstream hollywood. Everything has become about adaptations because from a marketing standpoint they're better since they come with a pre-existing fanbase. Everyone's calling LOTR the new Star Wars, well, Star Wars was original. Please note that I'm not saying that Star Wars is better than LOTR, I'm just saying that it's a different kind of film classic (one that was always intended to be viewed on the film medium). While not all adaptations are bad, they've almost totally supplanted original imagination. Only seven of the top twenty films released in the last year have been original. You guys are telling me this isn't a bad thing? 7:13 is a depressing ratio. And while we still may have good films we have sacrificed total creative control. The only original film that I'm honestly looking foward to is The Fountain because I hope it can reverse the trend. But honestly, is The Fountain going come near $100 mil? I'd just like to see a new set of popular and original film classics, or else hollywood will just blend together. I know it sounds like I'm saying original writers are better than those that adapt, but I'm not. I'm sorry if it came out that way. In fact, I think it's probably more challenging to adapt something for the screen than create something out of thin air for it. Just look at the film "Adaptation" for proof. I just am sad to see hollywood continually depend on pre-existing stories and that naturally stifles unique creativity of someone like Peter Jackson. I can guarentee that people here would rather see The Hobbit as a film that an original story ala Heavenly Creatures. While this isn't neccesarily bad I think it definitely says something about our imaginatively-stilted culture.
2 Movies is a Bad Idea by Dapper Swindler	Sep 16th, 2006 01:36:48 PM
Not because it wouldn't work as 2 movies but because the motive for making it 2 movies is for the wrong reasons. Jackson had to beg and plead to get permission to make Lord of the Rings into 3 movies instead of 1 (which really would have sucked). But lots of people made money from this decision. Now the studio wants The Hobbit to be 2 movies for the same reason, to make money. If Jackson decided himself that it needed to be 2 movies in order to tell a great story, then I have no problem with it. So we have the studio already wanting to make decisions that will make them money. Even from this tiny bit of info in Variety, The Hobbit is off to a bad start.
But as far as MOVIES go, Azkaban was the best MOVIE. by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 01:36:59 PM
All the others seemed kinda plodding and grim in comparison.. Azkaban preserved a sense of humor, and was able to compress story elements visually. And just the scene where the kids interact with Buckbeak for the first time was awesome. It played like real kids interacting with a real animal. Bring that quality to Bilbo and Smaug and you've got Wonder.
A response to Mr. N by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 01:40:33 PM
You're making the mistake of thinking that adaptations are a modern and unique phenomenon. They're not. Shakespeare himself based not one, but every single one of his plays on pre-existing material. ALL of the bard's plays were adaptations of earlier works. By that line of reasoning, was Shakespeare 'unoriginal'?
No no and nooo!!! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 01:51:52 PM
Of course, Peter Jackson said that he wasn't involved with the Hobbit like everyone thought he would say. And, now, that he said his story...I don't want him directing the Hobbit!! Or, at least, I don't want him writing it. I strongly hold firm to the belief that The Hobbit is a children's story, not like the violent deep LOTR trilogy. I don't want Saruman or Sauron or any of that stuff. I want to be able to sit back and relax in the theater and watch an epic children's tale, not a movie rife with foreboding. It's time to relax after the Lord Of The Rings. It's time to excel, not in the adult action/fantasy department, but in the children's action/fantasy department. William Goldman should write the screenplay, Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise can direct. If Peter Jackson directs, don't let him change the HOBBIT!!!
Adaptations aren't a modern by Mr. N	Sep 16th, 2006 01:58:36 PM
Adaptations aren't a modern invention, that's completely true. But I feel like our culture's artistic dependence on them has never been higher. And that's a problem. There's not enough balance anymore.
Jackson's lack of interest in HOBBIT = PROOF! by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 01:58:54 PM
... Proof that he was a bad choice for Lord of the Rings in the first place.
Holm's not too old. by The_Deathticle	Sep 16th, 2006 02:03:07 PM
Ian Holm can and should still be Bilbo. Not only was his performance one of the best things about the whole movie trilogy, but he's already played "young" Bilbo during the flashback to Gollum's cave in FOTR. The key thing to remember here is that the Ring kept Bilbo from aging much, so that his appearance in FOTR is not far off from the way he looked when he first started wearing the Ring. Remember Gandalf's remarks upon arriving at Bag End in FOTR. He seemed a bit taken aback that Bilbo "hadn't aged a day." Just put the brown wig back on Holm and go for it. I think my favorite scenes in the entire LOTR movie trilogy were the ones between Bilbo and Gandalf. An entire movie with those two (played by Holm and McKellan) would be great.
Mikey_Bay HAS to direct this. by TomBodet	Sep 16th, 2006 02:03:08 PM
You know it. Steve Buscemi as Smaug's voice, Don Rickles as Gandalf, Ben Affleck as Beorn, oh the possibilities are Endless...
The only proof that Jackson isn't cut out for something by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 02:03:29 PM
is his total idea of bastardizing the Hobbit to make it a "Lord Of The Rings 4".
One more thing: the studios don't give a shit. by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 02:11:38 PM
They look and say "2 movies! Ah-ha! That means twice the money! Fuck the fans! I'm rich, bi-atch!" And, then they say "Children's movie? Fuck that. We want some beheadings and some wizards duels and shit! Where's Quentin Tarantino?" And, before you know it, the Hobbit or (The Hobbit 1: Mo Money and the Hobbit 2: Battles and Shit) are some of the worst movies ever made. I rest my case.
http://www.bendshire.com/ by darthferris	Sep 16th, 2006 02:15:19 PM
Check that out.
Monte Cristo, yeah, "Lord of the Rings 4" by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 02:17:05 PM
It's totally divorced from the mood of the original book, and is more of a money-making sequel mindset. Not "how do we adapt THE HOBBIT well" but "How do we make The Hobbit look like more Lord of the Rings, cos that's the safest way to ensure success". Sad, tiny-minded, hack-thinking
Adaptations vs. Original by one9deuce	Sep 16th, 2006 02:33:10 PM
Adaptations have always been around, and that is a good thing. We have all seen books we loved turned into films we loved. But the amount of original stuff IS dwindling, if only because film has been around for so long. What are the next big adventure franchises? Is there an Indiana Jones or Star Wars type series in our future? There probably can't be anything completely original, but a film or film series that samples many different genres, films, books, and ideas like The Matrix, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars all did is something I know I would like to see. And Peter Jackson for The Hobbit is definitely all wrong. I want to see The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings 4 and 5.
News Flash by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 02:57:53 PM
The Harry Potter movies are boring tripe. Utter kids stuff. I want no one associated with those films approaching a Tolkien property.
Ringy... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 03:07:53 PM
Quote: "Proof that he was a bad choice for Lord of the Rings in the first place". -- There was no "choice" about it. He was the only one who believed in the material enough to try shopping it around Hollywood. We all know you don't like Jackson, Ringy. But the fact that you only seem to post on AICN when there is a PJ TalkBack is a bit obsessive and creepy. I think it might be best for you to face this obsession and start dealing with it. (Perhaps a 12-Step Celebrity Stalker Program?) Besides, your bottom-of-the-barrel minority opinion of LOTR/PJ is starting to sound like a lonely voice crying for attention in the vastness of cyberspace. Again.
Hobbit 2: Hobbit Justice by acebandage	Sep 16th, 2006 03:26:56 PM
The Hobbit can be done as two films and still be tonally right. Just keep the story elements involving Bilbo in the same tone as the book and the expanded elements that involve the big picture can take on the darker more sinister tone that will be more geared toward adults. That way the kiddies will love the stuff with Bilbo and will probably not "get" the political intrigue of the rise of Sauron, whereas the rise of Sauron story will offer more tie to the stories that follow in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It's not like these events didn't happen in the backdrop of Bilbo's story, they just weren't focused on. And the whole idea that this is a bad idea to make two films out of it because the studio decided to do it for the wrong reason (money), well wake up! THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THE STUDIOS DO WHAT THEY DO! If the right creative people luck into being involved with projects that were greenlit with sole (and souless) intent of simple monetary gain and are able to make something special then I am all for it. P.S. I'm sorry I can't recall who suggested it but, "the Hobbit" and "There and Back Again"...wonderful!
"Our dependence on adaptations has never been higher"? by Orbots Commander	Sep 16th, 2006 03:28:45 PM
Mr. N, I would be willing to wager a good sum of money that any odd year in the movie industry during the golden age of movies, i.e. mid 1930's - 1950's, boasted more adaptions of novels and plays than original works. Casablanca? Based on a play. Wizard of Oz? novel. Gone with the Wind? novel. Maltese Falcon? novel. Scarface? novel. The Mark of Zorro? short story/novella. etc. etc. etc.
about Aragorn's Age. by Datascream	Sep 16th, 2006 03:37:00 PM
keep in mind Aragorn in LOTR was at least 80-90 years old, because of his bloodline that made him age slower then average humans.
Acebandage, two movies can't possibly work! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 03:45:31 PM
I, and many other people said, we don't want to see a Lord Of The Rings 4. We don't want to know about the White Council. That story is over and done. We want to know about Bilbo Baggins and his lighthearted adventures while acquiring the Ring of Power. It can be dark at times and action packed of course. But...it's not about any of the "LOTR" side story that was only hinted at in the book. It should be a nice PG, with violence at a "Star Wars" level. No decapitations, no "Lord Of The Rings 4", just a nice Hobbit movie to relax with after the deep thematic material of the LOTR films. And two Hobbit movies can't possibly work, because the book is a simple book with a simple purpose. Even when Tolkien rewrote the books to to fit Lord Of The Rings better, he didn't squeeze any White Council stuff in it. The book is shorter than Lord Of The Rings: FOTR. It could easily be one 2 hour 45 min film.
I DO want The Hobbit to be a LOTR prequel by crackerfarmboy	Sep 16th, 2006 04:25:22 PM
I don't understand why anyone else wouldn't? Sure it's a nice little story, but it's real significance is that it sets up the events of LOTR. Also the White Council adventure IS referenced in The Hobbit. It's importance though is not discussed until FOTR and The Silmarillion. Keep it the same tone as LOTR, let the whole story be told.
Aragorn's age by vikingSF	Sep 16th, 2006 04:25:38 PM
I've been reading this site for years and never posted on the talkbacks, but I had to for this - listen, Aragorn was over 80 years old (around 88, I believe) at the time of Frodo's adventure in the Lord of the Rings. Bilbo was 111 at the beginning of Lord of the Rings. Bilbo was 50 years old when he had his adventure in The Hobbit. Subtract 60+ years from 80+ years and you get an Aragorn in his 20s. Thanks.
To the one who asked about Aragorn's age... by Nachokoolaid	Sep 16th, 2006 04:32:29 PM
if my calculations are correct, Aragorn was 26 during the Hobbit. And PJ must see this as a priority. Seeing him talk about a -part Hobbit film with the inclusion of the White Council and the Rise of Sauron (something I always wished for but never thought I'd see included) makes me giddy. It also saddens me that he seems sort of ambivalent toward it.
For all the idiots by Nachokoolaid	Sep 16th, 2006 04:41:45 PM
who are saying that Saruman and Sauron and some of the characters from LOTR have nothing to do with the Hobbit are ignorant. Go read the appendices.
LotR succeeded DESPITE Jackson by PhilConnors	Sep 16th, 2006 04:41:54 PM
Yes, they were competent adaptations, any ways that they succeeded came directly from the books, while their flaws came completely from the writers/director. I'd be interested to see if someone could do a more genuine adaptation of The Hobbit (although I sure wouldn't mind Weta's involvement).
Michael Bay presents "The Hobbit" by 'Cholera's Ghost	Sep 16th, 2006 04:43:23 PM
Aw hell yeah.
Ask PJ or New line SUCKS! by tile_mcgillus	Sep 16th, 2006 04:44:42 PM
It is pretty much that simple.
Read the Hobbit. (NO TWO MOVIES!) by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 04:46:38 PM
I'm not talking about the fucking appendices. I'm talking about the book. And nowhere in the book is anything about Sauron and Saruman. I don't care what's going on in the background. I want a faithful adaptation. And, I sure as hell don't want two movies.
No Hobbit!!!! by alienindisguise	Sep 16th, 2006 04:47:47 PM
I for one don't want a 3 hour Hobbit flick building to a climax where Bilbo gets knocked the f out! You should've tried to get a few Avatar bits from Jackson, Quint!
"Hobbit, Shmobbit!" by The Savage Smeghead	Sep 16th, 2006 04:53:36 PM
I dug the LORT films (third one was my fave), but I'd much rather see Peter Jackson continue making films in the same vein as "Dead-Alive (aka Braindead)," "Bad Taste," and "Meet the Feebles." I would especially love to see a return to the universe of "The Frighteners," another film where, say, Dammers returns to give Frank Bannister hell (literally) while Frank's dealing with his own shit. I would love to see something like that. Or maybe find some way to team up Jackson with Sam Raimi for the ultimate grungy horror film experience.
Seriously though--A P. Jackson Hobbit not happenin' by 'Cholera's Ghost	Sep 16th, 2006 04:58:35 PM
From the sounds of it. If so, it's going to be years...YEAAARRRRRSSsss. And years are something McKellan does not have. I'm sorry. Congratulations, Ringwearer. Hey, Pete, get to work on Dune, and give Hobbit to Ridley.
George Miller, Tarsem, Peter Weir by Calico Pete	Sep 16th, 2006 05:36:30 PM
These would all be better options than PJ. Here's an article on Tarsem's The Fall (http://www.thehotbutton.com/t oday/hot.button/2006_thb/06091 5_fri.html) that will make your mouth water for Tarsem's The Hobbit. Miller, what with Babe Pig in the City (not to mention all the other stuff in his oeuvre) under his belt, would also be a fantastic choice. Peter Weir would be great too. The Truman Show, Master & Commander, Witness... all films that had strong visual styles, and successfully conveyed an intimacy and immediacy while feeling epic at the same time. PJ's films lacked that immediacy. They felt detached emotionally. Their visuals were too by the book.
NEW EPISODE OF SONIC WARRIORS by doctoremittbrown	Sep 16th, 2006 05:47:15 PM
the fifth episode of Sonic Warriors "Judger Be Judged" is ready to rock your face nuggets...WATCH IT!!! myspace video: http://vids.myspace.com/index. cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual &videoid=1174962415 youtube: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =h0EJleR6Oo4 Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cHJoESRpuvw
Cool, cool by Jaka	Sep 16th, 2006 06:02:10 PM
I hope the film(s) are made, with PJ, Fran and Phillipa and the original cast/crew etc. But like PJ I'll still go see them (at least the first one) if somebody else directs. But not if it isn't as many of the LOTR cast members as can possibly be fit into the story. And, whoever makes them, they need to dig into Christopher's historical/research books. They could easily fill out two movies with the Hobbit and those books. And they could do it in a way that stays true to the Tolkienn universe.
Must Do Hobbit by Darth Melkor	Sep 16th, 2006 06:07:59 PM
They have to, and they have to now. The actors are old. I don't want someone else playing Bilbo. I want Ian Holm! He's in his eighties, as is Christopher Lee. Hurry up and make this shit, gross your bajillion dollars, get your Oscar nominations, sell 20 bazillion DVDs, and make the fans happy.! :)
No two movies!! by MonteCristo	Sep 16th, 2006 06:08:15 PM
Jaka, what Hobbit and those books? There is only ONE book...the Hobbit! And don't mess up my "Hobbity" experience with your wizard duels and your battles.
All those moaning about The Hobbit as LOTR 4... by raw_bean	Sep 16th, 2006 06:10:41 PM
...should note the following three points (taken from the History of Middle Earth, Unfinished Tales, and Letters of JRR Tolkien): ---------- 1) After publishing LOTR, Tolkien went back and made some significant modifications and edits to The Hobbit to bring it more in line with LOTR. It's extremely unlikely any of you have ever read the original text of the Hobbit before Tolkien revised intending it to act as a proogue to LOTR. ------------ 2) The whimsical, silly and 'childish' tone of much of the book was something Tolkien came to deeply regret, believing (as I always have, particularly when I was a kid) that children hate to be talked down to, and were quite capable of understanding, and usually appreciative of, the more serious, grown-up tone the book strayed towards in the later chapters. ----------- And 3), because of the above two points, Tolkien began in later life, though never got very far with (as with far too many of his works due to the pressures of time) a complete rewrite of The Hobbit from scratch, intending to bring it much closer in tone and detail to LOTR. ------------ So on this one, I agree with Peter Jackson and JRR Tolkien, and would love to see a (or two) grown-up adaptation of The Hobbit in the style and tone of the LOTR films, acting as prologue to them and exploring all the cool stuff with the White Council and Sauron-as-Necromancer that worked its way into his simple children's story.
rev_skarekroe is 100% right by Jack Colby	Sep 16th, 2006 06:27:50 PM
I hope Jackson is never allowed to touch the Hobbit. All his "expansion" ideas mentioned here sound awful and would ruin the Hobbit completely. He clearly has no idea what that story is about or should be like. I'd personally rather see Ian Holm telling the story to some young hobbits (reappearing throughout, not just bookends) and then scenes of the actual story happening shown in a very different more whimsical style than the LOTR movies. Show us Bilbo's telling of it, not the events as they would have looked in LOTR's reality. And with the exception of Legolas standing there in the background quietly keep all the other LOTR-only characters OUT.
Actually, I take it back... by Jack Colby	Sep 16th, 2006 06:36:00 PM
Jackson should do the Hobbit as an epic fantasy trilogy prequel to his own LOTR films. HE can make up a ton of new material until the actual storyline of the book is small in comparison. This would neatly get around the restriction that they have since legally only The Hobbit and LOTR are available for adaptation. His "adaptation" could be 10% Tolkien and 90% PJ, Fran and Phillipa. And most of the illiterate kids watching wouldn't have a clue, and would love it, just like LOTR. That's honestly the best money-making idea they could have! Weasel a LOTR prequel trilogy out of the Hobbit.
Agreed by SpikedBuffy	Sep 16th, 2006 06:46:46 PM
I agree with raw_bean that the hobbit was intended to tie in with lotr and could make two great movies. If you want a happy version, watch the cartoon. So much stuff is happening during the hobbit that bilbo is oblivious to, but would definately enhance the whole story and actually make the movies more fun to watch.
Fantastic talkback; a few responses... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:17:52 PM
Crackerfarmboy: "Sure it's a nice little story, but it's real significance is that it sets up the events of LOTR." This kind of sentiment is usually felt by those who don't have a childhood sentimental attachment to "The Hobbit." If you change your statement slightly to read "...but the real significance of the EVENTS of The Hobbit..." it would have been true. The "historical" events that occur during Bilbo's quest do set up LOTR. But the charm of "The Hobbit" is that it is practically an ode to English Country living. No one rhapsodizes over descriptions of cakes laden with honey and fresh cream, or the virtues of sitting by the fire with the kettle just starting to sing like Tolkien, and THAT, more than anything, is the "significance" of The Hobbit. It should be all about Bilbo, as he is the audience's entry point into all the fantastical elements. On that note, Jack Colby: your hook of having the Hobbit being told like a story by Bilbo to young hobbit children is f-ing genius! In Bilbo's world, everything could take on a more fantastical look, with exaggerated colors and whimsical dwarvish features.
Raw Bean, NachoKoolaid, others... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:28:10 PM
Constant harping that everyone who wants to "truly" understand The Hobbit has to read the appendices, the backstory, the fucking letters Tolkien wrote to his grandchildren, and also visit his grave to talk to his deceased spirit, it all grows wearisome. I have enjoyed The Hobbit, in its currently published form, since I was 5 years old, and I like it just fine. The fact is, intent is not really important when something has been in the public eye for nearly 70 years. It doesn't matter whether he wanted to change it, because he didn't. Many authors have regrets or things they wish to change, and sometimes there are revised versions of things published. However, unless it's in the final, published text of "The Hobbit", then I don't think it's relevant. There also seems to be 2 camps in regards to how important the White Council/Sauron events are in regards to a film adaptation of "The Hobbit". There are the completists, who seem to view this potential movie as some sort of historical document, where everything that transpired with relation to LOTR needs to be captured for posterity purposes. Then there are those that are fans of "The Hobbit" for what it is; a charming treatise on the pleasures of Hearth and Home, and the limited value of venturing out from them at least once in an otherwise leisurely life. Getting this across in terms of mood and tone could not be further from the mind of Jackson, who will obviously take everything to its utmost extreme whenever possible.
Return of the King is deeply flawed... by PurityOfEssence	Sep 16th, 2006 07:36:20 PM
I really enjoy it, but some of the things in it especially in the Extended Edition are just awful (such as: the breakin of Gandalf's staff and the fumbling of Gandalf's character in general, the handling Aragorn and Elrond's relationship, almost anything involving Liv Tyler...). So I don't know if what Jackson has planed is really what I would want to see.
the Hobbit is better than LOTR, by datachasm	Sep 16th, 2006 07:37:47 PM
i dunno, 2 films may be cool if they are released within months, 1 of the things i hated about the LOTR movies was the original intent to release within months until they turned it into a cash cow. plus, i cant tell the different factions and scenes apart. and there was too much padding the films with the walking around as stated in Clerks 2. anyways, the Hobbit was and still is my favorite of all 4 books, the LOTR takes itself 2 serious and could stand a heavy edit. books 2 and 3 were hard to get thru and generally dull. the Hobbit is a light read and very visual, i try to read it again every few years.
oh, and Quint... by datachasm	Sep 16th, 2006 07:41:34 PM
no one gives a ahit about your ideas for the Hobbit, including Peter Jackson, thanks
Revisions to The Hobbit were a SURPRISE to Tolkien! by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 07:47:41 PM
At least, he says so in his letters. He says he had written the main "revision" to the "riddles in the dark" chapter as an exercise, and had sent it to his publisher as an example of how he intended to tie The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings. But he had intended to include this chapter, or something like it, as part of Gandalf's story to Frodo abot how things really happened. Tolkien says that when he got the new, revised edition, he was surprised, because he never said that they should go ahead with it. He also expressed concern for the readers familiar with the way the story was told originally, and was so worried about their reactions that he wrote this big explanatory piece for the beginning of further editions, pointing out the change that had been made, and that the explanation for Bilbo's "lie" in the first version would be made clear in "The Lord of the Rings". Now, there are signs that Tolkien, as an old man, started to revise The Hobbit and make it less frivolous (Gandalf looking "strange and sorcerous" instead of "positively sorcerous", Smaug eating "Men and Dwarves of Dale" instead of eating "maidens"). He may regret the "talking to children" tone, but I, as a child, didn't regret it. I appreciated it, as it was a kind, intelligent voice that was talking to me. When people get old and grumpy they often become impatient with the silliness they might have indulged in as a young father, but that doesn't mean it has no value. Certainly, I managed to appreciated the mysterious hints of the "Necromancer" in the South of Mirkwood, as cool background flavor, even if it had nothing much to do with the main story.
Nothing about "The Hobbit" should be Nightmarish... by colematthews	Sep 16th, 2006 07:49:32 PM
...and I can already imagine at least 5 or 6 scenes in the PJ version that would be just that. Tolkien never made Bilbo putting on the ring anything more than pure fun at getting to be invisible. There were no repercussions (at least not immediately), he just put it on all the time for the fuck of it. Whenever it was handy to get him out of trouble. There was no swooning or PJ cam going on. And if I have to see Bilbo get that quasi-orgasmic look on his face like Frodo always had, I'm gonna lose it. I can also see the scene with the Spiders being way over the top, not comical at all. That's part of the thing that makes me think Jackson is wrong for this: most of "The Hobbit" is comical in tone, not all scary and creepy, even when the characters are technically in danger. I don't WANT the battle of 5 armies to be some 90 minute epic war story, with 50,000 cgi extras duking it out. I realize this may require some to want to revoke my geek card or whatever, but in relation to the story of Bilbo, this battle is fairly minor. It's only like 4 pages of one chapter. It just seems to me that Jackson's tendencies on LOTR were to focus on things that, while technically "part of the story", were not really what most would remember from the books. Always expanding on something he thought would be neat, then cutting out things that were actually in the books. Always adding in the darker material, taking out little comic touches that Tolkien liked. I was particularly annoyed at the way he handled the scene at the end of FOTR with Frodo trying to leave, and Sam insisting on coming along. In the movie, it's all dramatic, like we're actually supposed to be worried that Sam is going to drown in 5 feet of water. And after that it's nothing but lovelorn looks and oddly queer dialogue from Frodo. They took all the humor out of the scene, and left in the lamest parts of the sentimentality. Go back and read the scene as written in the book, it's literally the last page or two of Fellowship. I really like this exchange: "Of all the confounded nuisances you are the worst, Sam!" he said. "Oh, Mr. Frodo, that's hard!"
Stallone should be in this one. by TomBodet	Sep 16th, 2006 08:43:11 PM
Two Hobbit Movie? No thanks. Whoever said 'Peter Weir'--good!! That'd work, sure. Peter Verhoeven however, on the otherhand, 'RoboBilbo' or whatever, naw jest doesn't cut the mustard. Ahnold as Elrond-Zese Ahr da Moonledders-see?-nope can't see that either. Sly as Bilbo?! Think about it. There he is, outside Thranduil's lair, dwarves(Danny DeVito, Kenny Baker, Warwick Davis, Robert Reich, etc. CGI Billy Barty, etc) all tied up, w/ Devito(Thorin) groaning about them being 'done for' etc. 'NOTHIN'S OVAHH MANN--Just GIMME a DRINK--' comes booming outta the thin air. You just know Stallone can nail it............COUGHS In all seriousness, Sir Petey Jax might have his heart in the right place for this one, but he just sounds All Wrong for it. He's trying to retconn this franchise into his own image, if you like-and as I burbled somewheres else here, the idea of 'Saving Pvt Frodo', while a good idea for the trilogy, really blows for this one. Narnia had it right, at least as far's not over-selling the conceit-talking beavers, lions, centaurs, etc are all Right Here, accept it and move on. It was not a great flick but it was good for what it was. Be interesting to see who'd get this franchise if it truly is gonna be done and Sir Petey can't make it go. My Mikey_Bay 'suggestion' was in-jest, certainly, but admit this-you KNOW he'd have cranked out a better Supes Returns than Singer. Half as 'smart', sure. But a heckovalotta more fun.
It WILL work by performingmonkey	Sep 16th, 2006 08:48:39 PM
The actual story in the Hobbit is a toned down version of what 'really' happened. It would seem stupid if Bilbo went running off with Dwarves, singing and not getting into much danger and being in this quite childish, cartoonish world where Trolls are more like trolls in kid's stories rather than real dangerous creatures etc. it wouldn't be the same world as LOTR. The Hobbit feels much more cliched with it's fantasy. I know I wouldn't accept it if the movie didn't provide the 'reality' of LOTR, all the work WETA put in to make the world feel like it had history, the darker version of Elves that were much more than singing 'fairy' types, all the details with the weapons and armour and the different breeds of orcs, the lack of 'frivolity', the updating of various elements for the modern audience whilst keeping the overall tone true to Tolkien. Bilbo's story would still be the MAIN element of the movie(s) but like LOTR it would split off to see other characters, namely Gandalf. In the book Gandalf has a fairly small role, he just starts off the adventure ('I simply gave your uncle a little nudge out of the door' or whatever he says at the beginning of the FOTR movie). If the movie followed Gandalf's story also it would be EXCELLENT. It isn't related to the RING at all. Gandalf just thinks the Ring, and Bilbo's reluctance to tell the truth about how he found it, is strange, but it isn't mentioned again. The beginning of FOTR would still play correctly because it IS only then that Gandalf realises the Ring is certainly something more than just a 'magic ring'. The throwing of Sauron (or the Necromancer, as he is known by at this point, Gandalf and co. don't realise it's Sauron until they actually go to defeat the Necromancer) from Dol Guldur will be a great thing to see. Gandalf gets thrown into the dungeons of the Dark Lord, if I remember correctly. There could be a huge battle, comparable with LOTR battles. The main battle that Bilbo is in will be amazing, as will Smaug the dragon burning the shit out of the lake people (in a PJ-13 way, of course). They could develop the Laketown people a little so we actually care when they get attacked. Their leader would have a bigger role than in the book, as would the guy that kills Smaug. As for Thorin Oakenshield, the ultimate badass Dwarf king who hates Bilbo, what a role that is. Maybe the best role in the movie. Who could they get for it? Brian Cox springs to mind, in fact he would probably be the PERFECT choice, unless they want a younger Thorin. As for LOTR cast appearances, Viggo couldn't do it because Aragorn is too young (unless they de-age him), a Legolas cameo would be pointless, Hugo Weaving as Elrond would be good as Elrond is actually in The Hobbit. Obviously, the main people they need back are Ian Mckellen as Gandalf the Grey and Andy Serkis as Gollum 'what has it got in it's pocketses?'.
Why doesn't PJ get off his arse and.... by J-Dizzle	Sep 16th, 2006 10:00:37 PM
...ask MGM and New Line himself?? For God's sake, he knows we want him to make The Hobbit, he knows that we expect it. This whole "Nobody's called me" excuse is lame! MGM's Hobbit announcment was huge, and kudos to them for stepping up to create the buzz and get the ball rolling. Now PJ knows, all he has to do is pick up that phone and make the call. Screw waiting, JUST DO IT PJ, WE EXPECT YOU TO DO IT! Otherwise MGM will do it without you. If the movies turn out to be great you'll be kicking yourself for not getting involved when you had the chance, if they turn out to be crap then you'll be kicking yourself for not getting involved and the save the movies when you had the chance!
king kong was overrated by Cotton McKnight	Sep 16th, 2006 10:04:33 PM
and the special effects were sub par. In fact I think Weta does some really lousy work.
NEON GENESIS EVANGELION by Ribbons	Sep 16th, 2006 10:13:20 PM
Not to sound churlish, because I've read this entire interview and loved most of it, but the next time you get Peter Jackson or someone at WETA on the phone, you should ask them about the status of 'Neon Genesis Evangelion.' For all I know, it's been dropped from their schedule completely. But I know that WETA has a couple of preliminary, conceptual sketches on its website and that Richard Taylor was, once, obsessed with making the film. So it would be interesting to hear where that's at now. Anyhoo, thanks for the interview Quint.
Not good news about The Hobbit. by rbatty024	Sep 16th, 2006 10:28:00 PM
I was hoping for a more family friendly film. Making it in line with the rest of Lord of the Rings seems like a terrible idea. In my perfect version The Hobbit would be a faster paced, more adventure oriented, instead of focusing on politics and war. Lord of the Hobbit sounds shitty. The greatness about LotR is that they were able to get the tone right even if they didn't follow the books exactly. If they throw out the tone of The Hobbit, then it'll be a major fuck up. Hopefully Jackson doesn't actually helm this film and we get someone more in tuned to action/adventure instead of the same godamn shot over and over again.
Cotton McKnight by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 10:37:17 PM
"king kong was overrated and the special effects were sub par." -- I think the problem with Kong was that it was rushed to the theater. Although PJ and Universal (who were banking on the LOTR credibility) were pleased with the 3 hour cut, they basically ran out of time to refine it further. Obviously, no one in the production will admit to that but that's my theory. Reading Jackson's comments on deadlines only further convinces me of this.
Ribbons by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 16th, 2006 10:47:28 PM
RE: NEON GENESIS EVANGELION - it may depend on the studio and audience reception to "Transformers" that determines whether a similar robot/mech-style movie gets the greenlight. Yikes.
Sounds good to me by 4815162342	Sep 16th, 2006 10:59:39 PM
PJ should be the only one who gets it. LOTR was very well done.
Why Not Just Remake LOTR? by SnakesOnABicycle	Sep 16th, 2006 11:34:14 PM
It has been 3 years.
my opinions by FrodoFraggins	Sep 16th, 2006 11:52:05 PM
There is absolutely no need for two movies - it should be one movie at 2.5hrs or less. Legolas, gimli, arwen and aragorn need not apply. I understand the need to mantain some consistency with the LOTR trilogy. BUT, that doesn't mean they can't maintain the idea that this was a more innocent world than what we saw in LOTR. I don't have any issues with a small segway to the council, but the actions at Saurons fortress in mirkwood really aren't what this story is about. PJ "introduced" way to much stuff in the last two films, when there was plenty of material he could have taken from the books. There's no need for him to to bastardize "the hobbit" as well. It's a simple and fun story set in middle earth. Let's leave it at that. When the tolkien estate opens licensing to the Silmarillion and other tolkien works then PJ can have a field day. But don't turn the hobbit into something it was never meant to be.
Just for fun, what would a Jackson Hobbit be like? by Ringwearer9	Sep 16th, 2006 11:53:20 PM
1. The Unexpected Party : Lots of closeups of the Dwarves mouths eating tomato sandwiches messily, getting food in their beards. 2. Instead of Gandalf saving them from the trolls, it will be a troop of troll-surfing elves. 3. When Gandalf's magic sparks burn holes in the orcs under the Misty Mountains, they will literally burn big black holes all the way through, which the camera will swoop into and out of. 4. When the dwarves and Bilbo are caught on the top of that burning pine tree, Bilbo will be rescued, not by an Eagle, but by Arwen flying ON an eagle. 5. Beorn won't be in the movie, cos Jackson is a "serious" movie director, and Man-Bears are just silly. 6. Like Shelob, all the Mirkwood Spiders will have crusty sores on their faces, and Bilbo will jump around like he's on crack, just like Sam did. Maybe we'll be treated to closeups of the Wood-elves at their feasts, sloppily chomping tomato sandwiches to show how nasty they are to Bilbo and the Dwarves. 7. There will be another feast at Laketown, and another opportunity to show the greed and nastiness of the Laketown men as the camera does extreme closeups on their mouths as they eat tomato sandwiches. 8. Smaug, as I've noted before, will have filthy teeth and drool a lot, and have crusty, oozy sores on his jewel encrusted belly. His fabulous treasure will be filled with maggoty corpses, or hideous mummies, just like on Skull Island. 9. Plenty of shots of Lakemen running around on fire, just like Denethor, maybe one shot of the Mayor on fire running down a LONG pier. 10. The bowman who shoots down Smaug will also put an arrow into the aforementioned on-fire Mayor. 11. The Battle of the Five armies will go on forever, with multiple Olympic Orc Suicide Attacks and lots of Nazi elves marching in formation. 12. Other than burn big gory holes in the Misty Mountain goblins, Gandalf won't get to do anything else, because he'll accidentally drop his staff before the Eagle rescue.
Tomato Sandwiches? GENIUS!! by FrodoFraggins	Sep 17th, 2006 12:00:02 AM
Ringbearer9 said: "7. There will be another feast at Laketown, and another opportunity to show the greed and nastiness of the Laketown men as the camera does extreme closeups on their mouths as they eat tomato sandwiches." Will they be true sandwiches? Or will a sliced tomatoe act as the bread with blood pudding filling?
I'll direct the Hobbit by Westonian	Sep 17th, 2006 12:12:41 AM
Give me a call..
and Michael Clarke Duncan should play Bilbo by emu47	Sep 17th, 2006 12:49:52 AM
Because if this is a movie about some "Hobbit," that hobbit should kick some arse. No WAY does Bilbo sit out in the big fight. That just ain't Hollywood enough. We need him to have a moment where he grabs Smaug's tail, beats Smaug to death while flying through the air, and uses the dragon to dive-bomb the evil-doers. After a majestic surf off the dragon's head, Beastmaster Baggins bites the head off the mean dwarf and spits it at a giant gong.
Important moment in Jackson's Battle of 5 Armies by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:24:42 AM
The orcs will suddenly roll up a ong line of mysterious large barrels, with short black ropes sticking out of the bung holes, right up to the front lines next to the elves. They will then retreat quickly, leaving a nice long space between the puzzled elves and the barrels. Then a line of Olympic Orcs without any armor will jog majestically towards the mysterious barrels with short black ropes sticking out of them. This will result in a nail-biting setback for the good guys.
The Hobbit is a children's story PERIOD by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:28:45 AM
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole filled with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. - read that outloud and tell me that The Hobbit isn't a children's book.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:33:37 AM
if you aren't already on some FBI watch list for crazy people who are likely to embark on a random killing spree, you should be. dude, whatever your opinion is, you made is a LOOONNNNGGGGGG time ago and now you are just kinda sounding like a scary nutcake. sit down, chill out, open your eyes and come back to reality. we get your points, we don't need to have them hammered over and over again. you're just coming across like an asshole now.
Ringwearer9 by antonphd	Sep 17th, 2006 01:50:20 AM
I'm right there with you on having Alfonso Cuarón for The Hobbit, but man, can you chill out with the Peter Jackson hate rants. You know, he's probably reading these, or someone who works close with him is, why don't we use this opportunity constructively instead of wasting it on pointless trash talking. We all know Peter Jackson doesn't have time to do The Hobbit in the time frame that MGM and New Line expect it to be done. But if he steps in as a producer with someone like Alfonso Cuarón, then we have the guarentee that the film will get a full budget backing from the studios and be forced to keep the films from turning into something aweful. I think Peter Jackson did an amazing job with LOTR and I think that Alfonso Cuarón did a fantastic job with HP3 and especially The Little Princess. I want to see a PJ produced AC directed The Hobbit movie in the next few years. This little window here in this talkback can be more influential than you can imagine. Don't forget who first suggested Frodo to PJ. Whether you like that decision or not, there is some influence here and it would be far better used in positive suggestions than wasting time shitting on Peter Jackson.
MGM PHONE JACKSON....NOW !!!!!! by giger167	Sep 17th, 2006 05:34:03 AM
When exactly did everyone start hating Peter Jackson ? Did I miss that memo ? If he wants to make the hobbit, and get's the chance, surely it's the most exciting movie news in years. I happen to think the Lord of the rings trilogy is the most important fantasy movie series in history and any time he wants to return to the series (whether it be the Hobbit, Silmarillion, or whatever else he decides to make) i'll be there at the front of the queue opening night. How any stduio can not have this on fast track defies belief, the last LOTR movie made over a Billion dollars, is there more of a sure thing in cinema history. If anything The Hobbit could be more sucessful, as the story is more accessible by far, and as revised by Tolkien to include more portents could easily be tied to LOtr trilogy. Really if Peter Jacksons The Hobbit doesnt get some possitive feedback on this site I supsect the haters have won :(
Damnation Ringy, that was FUNNY! by TomBodet	Sep 17th, 2006 07:04:24 AM
Suicidal Olympic Orcs! The same geniuses, who at the end of Fellowship there, out-numbered Aragorn by about, oh, I donno, 467-1 and had to retreat. Suicidal Special Olympic Orcs! That's funny! Anton lighten up. Sir Petey can take it, trust me. Looks like he ISN'T going to do this one, so they can give it to Cuaron or Weir or Ridley or _Bay if they so choose to. Stephen Sommers yer phone's ringin'. Get some of the same mood that you used to see in things like that first Mummy movie(boys the hatemail's comin' my way--fuck it I don't care) and you might have something. NiceGayus-yer right on the money. Jax put Cretaceous_Kong out too soon, someone above wanted to hit that deadline. I can't imagine him leaving it at 3 hours or not tightening up some of the crappier segs if he'd had the proper post-prod. time. They stuck the whole three-way V-Rex fight over on YouTube, it's still both manic as hell and kinda over-done. It's still fun if you are in the right frame of mind.
Why not change the Hobbit? by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 08:24:06 AM
The Hobbit needs changing. Forty five minutes of songs and being regularly saved by people bearing sandwiches would make an awful film. Sure it'd be kid friendly but then who else would care? Personally Beorn's talking, table catering mutts would be a little too much like that bloody Narnia disgrace...
If We Must Change Directors Go See-->Fernando Meirelles by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 10:26:50 AM
Here is one Director, I dont see fucking up ANYTHING in the near future. He has an amazing Visual Eye, is able to tell you about his characters and make you understand them in very short amounts of time, despite dealing with a lot of them. Breathtaking camera work, Top notch casting...this guy is the real deal. NEW LINE PAY FUCKING ATTENTION, DONT FUCK THIS MOVIE UP!
Sure, do two movies with new bogus material added... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 10:35:41 AM
...and while you are at it, give it to Berman and Braga. If you are gonna hose it, hose it good! The reason things are edited down is usually to make it BETTER. If Tolkien left things out of Hobbit, well, I will go with his judgement. How many times do we see "deleted scenes" on dvds and it is really obvious why they were deleted. And some of the LOTR extended scenes were just filler or distracting, not adding to the story--often the original cut is best, and the so-called director's cut puts some crap back in that was rightfully cut in the first place. Think Exorcist and Blade Runner. Tolkien wrote a winner, make the winner.
A Sidenote, You All Do Realize In The Two Towers.... by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 10:35:57 AM
..in the book. There is indeed a part where he orcs blow up a part of the wall at Helms Deep. A friend of mine who considers themselves a Tolkien freak cried foul when she saw this happen on screen, saying that it wasnt in the book. I re-read that entire section and it is actually in there. Of course for the movie it became a very large part of the battle, which I can understand why. But it does indeed happen in the book. That is all.
Just for fun, what would a Ringwearer9 Hobbit be like? by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 10:40:55 AM
#1. The Unexpected Party: Lots of smartly dressed Dwarves saying "Please" and "Thank you" as they pass around mutton-cucumber-dill hors d'oeuvres. Bilbo does not appear at all put-out by their appetites or their manners. #2. Gandalf will save them from the Trolls but the Trolls will also be smartly dressed with clean fingernails. #3. When Gandalf's magic sparks burn holes in the orcs under the Misty Mountains, Ringy won't show it because it's too violent. #4. When the dwarves and Bilbo are caught on the top of the burning pine tree, the fire will appear as a cooler shaded color because the he doesn't like the natural COLOR OF FIRE! #5. Beorn will be played by Bart the Bear from "The Edge" (which will completely miss the point). #6. Once in Mirkwood, Ringy will inexplicably insert the Rankin & Bass "Mirkwood Sequence" and supplement it with insert shots of Bakshi's Elves cause we all know that Elf chicks should be HOT! #7. Laketown will be used as the segment where Ringy inserts his political beliefs into the film = A small town of cowards living under sanctions turns its fate around with the help of 13 strangers...kind of like "The Seven Samurai". #8. Smaug will appear as a handsome dragon, one that doesn't look remotely evil. His fire will be green because, once again, Ringy doesn't like the color of fire to look like THE COLOR OF FIRE. The treasure will have neatly stacked polished coins that look like something out of the Sci-Fi Channel's "Ring of the Nibelungs". #9. There will only be 2-3 shots of people on fire during the attack on Laketown. Ringy will find it too violent and he will alter the flames to a "cooler" color because, again, he doesn't like the natural COLOR OF FIRE. #10. The bowman's name is BARD. Learn it. #11. The Battle of Five Armies will be largely overlooked as Ringy can't stand all the filth & fury of battle. He will not want to put up with all the post-production costs involved with painting out the COLOR OF FIRE that is sure to occur during a large battle. #12. Gandalf's staff will be more of a telescoping cane. This will be more practical since he could keep it in his pocket. We all know how forgetful and clumsy a 3,000 year old wizard can be!
Ender, your friend was right about the Olympic Orc by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 10:51:48 AM
In the book they did blow up part of the wall, but the orcs just blew it up, they didn't plant the charge, then back up a bit so that an unarmored orc bearing a special hot flaming torch could jog down an alley made for him, making it really obvious he was up to something, just so he can touch off the bomb. And in the book, there were no elves at helms deep other than Legolas, but if there had been they wouldn't have needed Aragorn to tell them how to fight, and that orc would have had a pincushioned heart within seconds of starting his jog. And Legolas wouldn't have need Aragorn to tell him to shoot, but if he had, he'd have killed the unarmored orc with one shot.
Just to clarify... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 10:54:26 AM
During the first appearance of the "King Kong" trailer, Ringwearer9 (previously Ringbearer9) went completely psychotic over Peter Jackson's use of CGI sunsets and fire. The color of the sunsets = boring. The natural color of fire = phony. Unfortunately, you won't be able to look Ringbearer9's posts because he was banned. HA, HA, HA! Flame on!
I'm not a Jackson hater, but... by rbatty024	Sep 17th, 2006 10:57:41 AM
his comments about The Hobbit have me worried. I really liked The Lord of the Rings trilogy, reasonably liked King Kong, enjoyed Dead Alive, and actually liked The Frightners. However, to make The Hobbit fit the tone of LotR completely misses the point. The Hobbit should be a family affair, along the lines of the original Star Wars, The Wizard of Oz, or the first Harry Potter. It can be slightly trippy or scary, but overall it should be a more quickly paced adventure film. Breaking it into two and adding lots of stuff that was never in the book would kill Tolkein's purpose. They can change the book to more easily fit within the movie format, so long as the keep a more adventurous and family friendly tone.
Indeed Ringwearer, And I'm Not Alone Wishing by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 11:01:04 AM
That the elves hadn't shown up at Helms Deep, and it was Aragorns people instead. Since Two Towers came out I have read the Silmarillion 5 times, and LOTR twice. The Hobbit I read once in 15 years ago, I havent picked it up since then. I want this movie to be made badly, And I hope Jackson does Direct it. If not, IM ALL FOR FERNANDO MEIRELLES! LISTEN TO ME NEW LINE!!
Agh...The Nerd In Me Strikes Again... by The Ender	Sep 17th, 2006 11:02:38 AM
Ringwearer just to clarify, my friend was arguing that the wall blowing up Didn't happen at all. Not that the Olympic Orc blew it up, but that it just didnt happen. Since then, thy noob has been pwned. Okay..I'm done now. FERNANDO MEIRELLES!!
Fun stuff by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 11:05:54 AM
It's kind of funny trying to second guess everything Tolkien would or wouldn't have wanted in these movies. Very possibly he wouldn't have wanted any movies at all but we (well most of us) rather enjoyed watching them. Sure pay the author's intentions respect but making a line for line option on a book isn't going to work for any audience. Anyway, I thought Tolkien's one complaint about his own Lord of the Rings was that it was too short and he wanted more detail. If Jackson made the Hobbit he'd be making a prequel to his own version of the trilogy, with all his own quirks and revisions. The Hobbit would work much better as a serious prequel than one long kids road movie.
could it be that... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 11:15:30 AM
...Ender IS Fernando Meirelles? :-)
If NiceGaius made the Hobbit ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 11:18:47 AM
... he'd ask Peter Jackson how, because Peter Jackson is so cool! And AICN interviews him! Being a talkbacker here makes NiceGaius feel like an insider! It would suck if NiceGaius were an insider to lameness, therefore all Jackson is all good!
Oh, and Nice Gaius ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 11:29:01 AM
Your Ratfinkus stripes are showing. You just posted something worthy of Ratfinkus, not NiceGaius. And you were trying so hard.
Oh Ringodangdoodle... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 11:33:14 AM
I have never said that "all Jackson is all good". In fact, I thought a lot of Kong was heavy-handed, useless, and somewhat cringeworthy. And some of the additions to ROTK:EE were unneccessary. However, whenever I see a chance to confront your insanity, I will take it.
Oh and Ringwearer... by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 11:36:18 AM
you were owned. And I really don't have to try hard at all. You just make it soooo easy despite this desperate "Ratfinkus Defence" of yours.
focus on reality by sauronsfinger	Sep 17th, 2006 11:45:34 AM
All this fanboy talk about fave directors and childhood memories of a book seems to ignore some very pointed realities. First: PJ's version of LOTR was wildly successful on almost every level - financial - awards - critical reviews - fan acceptance - media awareness - merchandise spin-offs - the whole ball of wax that very few films ever approach. Second: MGM or New Line would be insane for attempting THE HOBBIT with anything but PJ and the crew he outlined in his interview. You do not mess with proven success and a track record of excellence. This is Hollywood and its a business to make money - NOT to allow you to fulfill your warped memories of a book that your wetnurse read to you when you were six. Third: JRRT himself invited others to join in and give their version of his mythology in several of his letters. PJ's version of Middle-Earth is just another version of the same story told by a different story teller with a different emphasis. Fourth: We are all jumping on this way too soon since it appears that the legal differences between Sony and New Line have yet to be worked out. But like it was said earlier --- I trust Peter Jackson. Nobody has the track record of excellent success with JRTT that he has. Or perhaps you wanted Ralph Bakshi to return?
Honestly, Peter Jackson makes Ralph Bakshi look good. by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 12:03:52 PM
I mean, I saw Bakshi's verison in the theatre, and I thought it sucked, mainly because of the awful animation. But that was because of underbudgeting. Bakshi obviously wanted to do the story justice, witness some of the truly polished scenes. There are moments of pure beauty in Bakshi's version. Bakshi picked a real writer to write the screenplay (Peter S. Beagle). Bakshi actually CARED, even if that caring was aborted by lackof finances to finish the movie properly. Jackson, as he's stated in more than one way, just doesn't really care about the books, or bringing their tone, their sensibility, to the screen. Jackson had better financial backing, so his film LOOKS technically better, but the soul of the director behind it all is that of an orc. Omni magazine once reviewed Bakshi's LOTR by starting "Ralph Baksh is an Orc", but I think that's unfair to Bakshi. Peter Jackson is an orc, however, despite the layer of Tolkien loving compatriots in making the film, that helped disguise his orcishness and keep it suppressed.
Edward Scissorelf. by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 12:06:54 PM
Get Depp as the wood-elf king. You know you want him as Bloom's father.
No one likes ratfinks, Ratfinkus by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 12:24:16 PM
If your strongest argument is ratfinking, then you'll have to live with no-one liking you. Not even the moderators whose asses you are trying to kiss.
Nice Gaius is right... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 12:24:36 PM
...when he points out that some additions to ROTK EE were unnecessary. Recently watched it, and kept thinking "WTF? Why add THAT back in?" But he and I are just killing time in this TB, waiting as patiently as possible for the BSG talkbacks to resume. See you there, sir! :-)
Ringfinkus by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:03:26 PM
What are you talking about? How am I "ratfinking" if I'm providing necessary background to your PJ Insanity? Please, take a step back, breath deep, and assess. OK? Good.
Roger that, chromedome! by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:04:17 PM
October 6th, the fight for humanity's survival resumes!
ENDER, to be fair to your friend ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:05:30 PM
... she was probably so annoyed by how stupid the whole scene was in the movie, she couldn't believe ANY of it was true to the book. That's Jackson's fault, not your friend's.
Ratfinkus, please continue ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 01:44:29 PM
being yourself.
Ender and the "Wall Scene" by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:48:05 PM
Bottom line: it worked great. Since Tolkien didn't specify how it was that they set off the explosion (he only refers to it as "blasting fire"), I thought the "suicide orc" was a nice touch. It fits in with the subtext of the orc's disregard for even their own lives - or as Theoden states, "such reckless hate". So, do not sweat Ringwearer's useless jibes. He's only exorcising his hate of PJ on this site.
"please continue being yourself". by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 01:50:30 PM
Gladly. I present to you, Mr. Nice Gaius.
right back atcha, Nice Gaius... by chromedome	Sep 17th, 2006 02:31:34 PM
..."October 6th, the fight for humanity's survival resumes"...and until then, the struggle for the BSG fan's survival is ongoing.... Eureka is a nice diversion in the meantime, though!
Ratfinkus you are, and ever will be ... by Ringwearer9	Sep 17th, 2006 02:35:56 PM
... the time of Nice Gaius has passed. It was but a dream, and even dreams have an end.
Ringb(w)earer9 by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 02:58:46 PM
Again, you have failed to answer what it is that I'm doing to constitute being called a "ratfink". But whatever. I can't take anything you say that seriously anyway. I'd rather drive a spoon into my ear. Although you are right about one thing - dreams do end. But sometimes they turn into nightmares. Don't make me become your nightmare, Ringy. I don't think you'll like that very much...
PJ did care about books by sauronsfinger	Sep 17th, 2006 03:02:39 PM
To throw out a silly idea such as PJ does not care about the books is just without factual foundation. Just watch the extras on the DVD's and you will see the writing team talk about including many scenes simply because they did care about the books and wanted to capture the essence of it. To say otherwise is just delusional and not supported by the films record. The fact that Peter Beagle wrote a book and was a writer on the Bakshi travesty means nothing in and of itself. Boromir as a Viking -- what a concept! Sounds like a PJ hater at work here who will not be swayed. "don't confuse me with facts" seems to be the mantra.
AICN comics up on bottom of page, & as for Hobbit... by kisskissbangbang	Sep 17th, 2006 03:13:58 PM
...by Jackson, I'm open-minded, though the notion of 2 films does strike me as excessive.
sauronsfinger by Mr. Nice Gaius	Sep 17th, 2006 03:19:18 PM
Welcome to the self-delusional world that is Ringb(w)earer9.
The boring parts of LOTR were the ones by CreasyBear	Sep 17th, 2006 03:19:35 PM
focusing on the Hobbits. This could be a mess.
More Diary of the dead news from the UK by Cleyu	Sep 17th, 2006 03:24:15 PM
http://tinyurl.com/m479t
Seriously? by auraboy	Sep 17th, 2006 03:24:39 PM
Oh who cares? Tolkien probably hated Lord of the Rings by the time everybody had finished eulogizing over it. Almost certainly he would have been happier if he'd written a complete linguistic history of Middle Earth with not a singular bit of descriptive action or character development at all. Or maybe would could encourage Jackson to film the Father Christmas letters. Plenty of intrigue and conspiracy. Though maybe lacking in squashy tomatoes. Andy Serkis as everybody but Santa.
AICN Comics up & as for Jackson Hobbit by kisskissbangbang	Sep 17th, 2006 03:25:06 PM

Talkbacks

Part 5: Quint and Peter Jackson talk THE HOBBIT and a potential return to low budget horror!!!