Two hobbit films planned-for LOTR prequel!

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: dainthomas
It's a fairly short book. I'm surprised it'll take two films, unless they didn't want another 3+ hour marathon.

i like the 3+ hour flicks.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Majesty
The Hobbit? Yes please. Peter Jackson? No please. He already butchered LoTR.

There is enough material in The Hobbit to consider 2 movies. Even if those movies only last 90-120 minutes each, it should be quite enough. WB already made a 75 minutes comic of The Hobbit in 1977 (which was really good and very like the book. There was no changes like a psychotic Galadriel or a crazy Balrog).

Anyway, New Line said once they want to bring back the characters from LoTR... Now, it's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but as far as I can remember, the only characters that can be back are Gandalf, Gollum, Legolas (It's far fetched. He's the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood), Gloin (he's at the Elrond's Council in LoTR) and Elrond.

Peter Jackson, for the love of Tolkien, stay away from The Hobbit and let someone REALLY make good movies out of that great story!

Whew... I thought I was the only mega lifelong Tolkein fan who thought that Jackson butchered LoTR...
Visually, Jackson did a great job with the special effects. The problem is that LoTR is much much more than just special effects. It's an immersion in a great artist's (Tolkein's) vision, and Jackson's vision didn't match Tolkein's one bit.

 

[AkumaX]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I think they should make a LOTR Holiday Special!!! :laugh:

complete with Leonard Nimoy *shudder*

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'm pleased to hear there is going to be a Hobbit movie, when I read both Hobbit and LOTR I actually liked Hobbit better. Yes, it's true the Hobbit book is short compared to the LOTR, but unlike LOTR (which is a bit bloated if you ask me) it's really compressed. If I remember correctly the Bilbo adventure took better part of the year (in "real life") to get to the mountain and back. Let's see, I may be messing up the names and places, since it's been a long time I've read the book, but trust me, there is more than enough stuff in the book to make two if not three movies: there is introduction Bilbo meets dwarfs for the first time, ogres/trolls scene in the woods, the dark forest, the fight with spiders in the dark forest, going under mountain where Bilbo finds the ring for the first time and escape from it with eagles scene, elf city and escape from elf city, travel to the mountain, and the Dragon stuff which may take up to an hour by itself including meeting him for the first time, battle at the river city, et all, and of course the final battle at the mountain between dwarfs, men and orcs. Like I said there is more than enough material to make two if not three movies. As for the Bilbo, afaik ever since he got the ring he has not aged a bit, so yes, they can reuse the actors.

And I do hope Peter Jackson directs it. While he did have to deviate from the original book story quite a bit in the LOTR, I do firmly believe he did the best possible job given the time and media constraints, and there is no one that could have done it better. I'm really looking forward to seeing Hobbit.

 

[Xyo II]

The Hobbit was the only book of the series that I really liked. I liked the LOTR movies, though. Woot!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Majesty
The Hobbit? Yes please. Peter Jackson? No please. He already butchered LoTR.

There is enough material in The Hobbit to consider 2 movies. Even if those movies only last 90-120 minutes each, it should be quite enough. WB already made a 75 minutes comic of The Hobbit in 1977 (which was really good and very like the book. There was no changes like a psychotic Galadriel or a crazy Balrog).

Anyway, New Line said once they want to bring back the characters from LoTR... Now, it's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but as far as I can remember, the only characters that can be back are Gandalf, Gollum, Legolas (It's far fetched. He's the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood), Gloin (he's at the Elrond's Council in LoTR) and Elrond.

Peter Jackson, for the love of Tolkien, stay away from The Hobbit and let someone REALLY make good movies out of that great story!

Whew... I thought I was the only mega lifelong Tolkein fan who thought that Jackson butchered LoTR...
Visually, Jackson did a great job with the special effects. The problem is that LoTR is much much more than just special effects. It's an immersion in a great artist's (Tolkein's) vision, and Jackson's vision didn't match Tolkein's one bit.

I don't see how you can feel that way ? I can't think of any major threads from the books, other than Tom Bobadil, that are missing from the movies.

And to me the special effects are integrated into the movies extremely well, they don't interfere with the story, but illustrate it.

 

[MrMaster]

scourge of the shire is also missing.

 

[Bateluer]

Hmm, I would have to say that the LOTR movies are one of the few cases where the movie is better than the book. The LOTR books are like the Apple IIe, venerable in their old age, but a poor substitute for modern epic fantasy. Give me Goodkind or Martin any day of the week, much better plot/story, dialogue, characters, action sequences, etc.

Seems like every couple of pages in the LOTR books, some idiot is breaking into song. Reading the LOTR books means one reads 2 or 3 pages of drivel, skips 4 pages of song lyrics, read a few more pages relevent to the story, skip more song lyrics.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: mrzed

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: Majesty
The Hobbit? Yes please. Peter Jackson? No please. He already butchered LoTR.

There is enough material in The Hobbit to consider 2 movies. Even if those movies only last 90-120 minutes each, it should be quite enough. WB already made a 75 minutes comic of The Hobbit in 1977 (which was really good and very like the book. There was no changes like a psychotic Galadriel or a crazy Balrog).

Anyway, New Line said once they want to bring back the characters from LoTR... Now, it's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but as far as I can remember, the only characters that can be back are Gandalf, Gollum, Legolas (It's far fetched. He's the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood), Gloin (he's at the Elrond's Council in LoTR) and Elrond.

Peter Jackson, for the love of Tolkien, stay away from The Hobbit and let someone REALLY make good movies out of that great story!

There's no bigger fan of LOTR than me (first read it in fifth grade, and many times since), and I have to say you're way off base here. Jackson did as good a job as anyone could, taking into account that many of the subtleties from the book (such as Galadriel's struggle with rejecting the ring) HAVE to be shown visually in a visual medium such as a film. Not sure what the problem with the Balrog scene is.

If you make a list of talented directors who are also fans of Lord of the Rings, it's going to be a pretty short list. I'd like to hear who else you were thinking of.

I am at least as big a fan of LOTR, read it in grade 4, then almost every year after that into my teens. Overall, my feeling after watching the movies was of gratitude, somebody at least had the vision to pull of the story in a convincing way, and the budget to do it right.

My main beef was with the character changes. Not Galadriel, but the replacement of Glorfindel with Arwen in the scene where Frodo is rescued. Mostly it bugged me that political correctness in the guise of increasing the profile of female characters overruled the original story.

Other than that, I thought it should have been six movies to match the books, but I admit that was just wishful thinking. And I missed Tom Bombadil.

me too

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Hmm, I would have to say that the LOTR movies are one of the few cases where the movie is better than the book. The LOTR books are like the Apple IIe, venerable in their old age, but a poor substitute for modern epic fantasy. Give me Goodkind or Martin any day of the week, much better plot/story, dialogue, characters, action sequences, etc.

Seems like every couple of pages in the LOTR books, some idiot is breaking into song. Reading the LOTR books means one reads 2 or 3 pages of drivel, skips 4 pages of song lyrics, read a few more pages relevent to the story, skip more song lyrics.

Sucks for you that your impatience causes you to fail to appreciate some of the finest pieces of literature ever written.
LOTR isn't just the plot/story. Tolkein's prose, style, and sheer command of the English language is an awesome work of wonder and beauty. He was like a modern Shakespeare.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Majesty
The Hobbit? Yes please. Peter Jackson? No please. He already butchered LoTR.

There is enough material in The Hobbit to consider 2 movies. Even if those movies only last 90-120 minutes each, it should be quite enough. WB already made a 75 minutes comic of The Hobbit in 1977 (which was really good and very like the book. There was no changes like a psychotic Galadriel or a crazy Balrog).

Anyway, New Line said once they want to bring back the characters from LoTR... Now, it's been a while since I read the Hobbit, but as far as I can remember, the only characters that can be back are Gandalf, Gollum, Legolas (It's far fetched. He's the son of the Elvenking in Mirkwood), Gloin (he's at the Elrond's Council in LoTR) and Elrond.

Peter Jackson, for the love of Tolkien, stay away from The Hobbit and let someone REALLY make good movies out of that great story!

Whew... I thought I was the only mega lifelong Tolkein fan who thought that Jackson butchered LoTR...
Visually, Jackson did a great job with the special effects. The problem is that LoTR is much much more than just special effects. It's an immersion in a great artist's (Tolkein's) vision, and Jackson's vision didn't match Tolkein's one bit.

I don't see how you can feel that way ? I can't think of any major threads from the books, other than Tom Bobadil, that are missing from the movies.

And to me the special effects are integrated into the movies extremely well, they don't interfere with the story, but illustrate it.

OMG there were so many changes, so many deviations from the books, that it would take me forever to write them all out.

Here's a quick one: how much time passed between Bilbo's birthday party and Frodo's departure from Bag End?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Bateluer
Hmm, I would have to say that the LOTR movies are one of the few cases where the movie is better than the book. The LOTR books are like the Apple IIe, venerable in their old age, but a poor substitute for modern epic fantasy. Give me Goodkind or Martin any day of the week, much better plot/story, dialogue, characters, action sequences, etc.

Seems like every couple of pages in the LOTR books, some idiot is breaking into song. Reading the LOTR books means one reads 2 or 3 pages of drivel, skips 4 pages of song lyrics, read a few more pages relevent to the story, skip more song lyrics.

Sucks for you that your impatience causes you to fail to appreciate some of the finest pieces of literature ever written.
LOTR isn't just the plot/story. Tolkein's prose, style, and sheer command of the English language is an awesome work of wonder and beauty. He was like a modern Shakespeare.

I agree with you, which is why I like the way the LOTR filmakers found ways to put a lot of Tolkien's prose and poetry into the movies, although not always in the same place or context where they appear in the books. Also, a great deal of spoken and sung dialects of Elvish, Rohan, etc, are authentic, even though the average person wouldn't know it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic
LOTR isn't just the plot/story. Tolkein's prose, style, and sheer command of the English language is an awesome work of wonder and beauty. He was like a modern Shakespeare.

I agree with you, which is why I like the way the LOTR filmakers found ways to put a lot of Tolkien's prose and poetry into the movies, although not always in the same place or context where they appear in the books. Also, a great deal of spoken and sung dialects of Elvish, Rohan, etc, are authentic, even though the average person wouldn't know it.

Yes, I know.
I think I should admit (to be fair to myself and everyone else) that it is possible that no film adaptation of LOTR would satisfy me. I've read the books so many times that I have my own inner vision of what it should look like, and it is unlikely that that vision matches anyone else's.
Damnit, the grass of Rohan is supposed to be green!

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
ONLY if Jackson Directs.

Amen!