CONCERNING HOBBITS ON MARCH 21ST…

PJ is a  talented filmmaker, but sometimes you have to go back to what put you on the map.  Besides, now we get a consistent vision throughout Tolkien's works and that's entirely proper.

I'm totally with you here, it is a step back,  however his post  Rings related projects have been very hit and miss so it might mean a return to form.

I dont think it's a step back at all. I think that he's really the only person that could do this. There needs to be a consistent vision for all of the Rings movies, and the only way that could happen is with Jackson directing.

This week's excellent New Yorker article on Del Toro claims that Jackson's involvement was essential in getting MGM to play. It also hints at creative differences, but I still want to see GDT's hatchet-headed Smaug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Dylan 

I dont think it's a step back at all. I think that he's really the only person that could do this. There needs to be a consistent vision for all of the Rings movies, and the only way that could happen is with Jackson directing.

Really?  because there isn't too much consistency of vision between The Hobbit and the Rings books themselves.  I think a different style could've worked just fine.

Still, it's hard to look at PJ's involvement as a bad thing.  The man knows fantasy and spectacle like no one's business.

I just want to know how they are going to handle talking trolls and singing goblins.

I'm not a fan of the Lord of the Rings films, but I am holding out hope that the subject matter here will include all the stuff I liked about them (complete worlds, hobbits, occasional sense of humor and whimsy) and do away with all the stuff I hated (tediously epic battles, self-seriousness, anything to do with elves).

Also, Martin Freeman is a glorious man.

I hope after this he pulls a Raimi and does another low budget splatter film.

We won't know if it's a step forward or back until we see it. I'm sure when PJ watches his LOTR films he sees things he could have done better and The Hobbit could still turn out to be a better made film than the trilogy if they learned those lessons right.

I don't think you can look at it as anything other than a step back. Jackson blew up with Lord of the Rings and then went on to make one mediocre film and one massive dogshit film; two pictures of varying degrees of success (one reasonably successful, the other not successful at all) is all it took to draw him back to his sandbox. Now, it's not bad that he's doing these films, but it doesn't speak well to where his career went post-Rings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jay f 

I just want to know how they are going to handle talking trolls and singing goblins.

Hey, where there's a whip, there's a way... so to speak.

What the ...? Does Agracru have me on ignore or something? He must have, because I just explained exaclty how I could look at The Hobbit as anything other than a step back for PJ. Fuck me. And I liked that guy!

Well godammit someone tell that sonofabitch that Bucho says he gets Nick's point that it'd be nice to see a visually creative guy like PJ work his wizardry on a property which is new to him, but if the Hobbit turns out to be his best film I don't see how you can look at it as anything other than a step forward! In fact, given the dire situation regarding Lovely Bones even laying in a hammock picking his nose is a step forward for him. The guy could enter the Royal Wellington Backward-Walking Championships and he'd still be taking forward steps relative to where he was post-Lovely Bones!

You guys tell Agracru I said that. You tell him good.

I will never regard the fact that PJ is doing more Tolkien films as anything other than manna from fucking heaven. And I outright reject, without any consideration, any opposite viewpoint.

I got your back on this great battle of our times, Bucho.

As someone who hasn't seen the Lovely Bones, Jackson's main problem seems to be dealing with bloat/overindulgence ever since the Frighteners. Kong's first and second act were chock full, and maybe a third of the LotR EE's(especially RotK) were redundant or silly.

I lose track, is the Hobbit one film now? Because that would lay a lot of my fears at ease.

No.  THE HOBBIT will be two films.

I can't say if that will be a bad thing or a good thing because, as Bucho said,  you don't know until you've seen the damn films.

And I haven't read the HOBBIT for about 20 years, so I'm not sure whether including most the old characters is a good fit or just a sop to the masses.

Although I imagine the majority of people who see the movies won't have read the book so they won't give a shit.

The Hobbit is a better read that LOTR, there I said it, so hopefully the films will be better.

Regarding Tolkien's books there are three kinds of people. The Hobbit people, who are wrong, the LOTR people who are simply misguided and The Silmarillion people who are right. They're also intellectual titans, men of refined taste and tender, imaginative lovers.

And I shall reply with a quote for Mr Terry Prachett.  "There are two types of people in the world. Those that have read The Lord of the Rings and those who realize the world is full of other books as well."

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. I prefer The Silmarillion. Not The Lord Of The Rings. The quote you quoted therefore has no bearing as a quote for this discussion. So this is another thing you're wrong at, besides liking The Hobbit more.

When going against intellectual titans you better bring your A game, friend.

Tolkien blows.

No you.

Nuh-uh! YOU do!

All kidding aside, I can't stand Tolkien's writing.  I get what he was trying to do, but his prose is much too dense for my tastes.

He has his moments but yeah, he's not what I'd call a great writer. A great storyteller, yes. Hence my preference towards The Silmarillion. Where people see millions of characters and a lack of focus, I see Tolkien doing what he does best. World building and story telling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. I prefer The Silmarillion. Not The Lord Of The Rings. The quote you quoted therefore has no bearing as a quote for this discussion. So this is another thing you're wrong at, besides liking The Hobbit more.

 

When going against intellectual titans you better bring your A game, friend.

 Good point, but i'm still right about The Hobbit :)