1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit" gets the green light!!

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Colorado Dolfan, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. Colorado Dolfan

    Colorado Dolfan ...dirty drownin' man?

    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3073225.ece

    Woohoo!! :ffic:

    Jackson's capacity in this film is likely to be just as a producer, but hopefully he'll have more than a little creative input to add. It just couldn't have been the same without him involved.
     
  2. Phinperor

    Phinperor formerly In_Flames Luxury Box

    15,406
    6,425
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    VA
    The book wasn't all that exciting but anything LOTR related is fine by me. I'll definitely see it opening weekend if it does in fact get made.
     
  3. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    Interesting I heard that The Hobbit was the better story over the LOTR. Which I guess is a preference.
     
  4. SCall13

    SCall13 ThePhins QB

    Merge
     
  5. Outtawack311

    Outtawack311 New Member

    106
    30
    0
    Dec 3, 2007
    I think this book can easily be made into one movie. I don't like that they are turning it into 2 just to make the extra profit from a sequel.
     
  6. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    He won't be directing it though.

    Click here for story

    Which is a good thing. LOTR sucked, just like King Kong, because Peter Jackson as no idea when enough is enough with a scene, whether it be the 315 endings to LOTR or people fighting bugs for an hour and half in King Kong. WETA is a helluva FX house but Peter is a horrible director.

    They do mention Guillermo del Toro as a possible director, who is a far superior story teller to Jackson. I think with del Toro's direction and WETA FX, you'll have a movie that exceeds LOTR in every way.
     
  7. Bruzer

    Bruzer New Member

    1,015
    469
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    Idaho
    I thought LOTR was one the best movies I have ever seen...
     
  8. HysterikiLL

    HysterikiLL Member

    256
    91
    0
    Nov 26, 2007
    I hated LOTR and I will hate these films, but I am going to work my *** off to get a job working on this film.
     
  9. quelonio

    quelonio Season Ticket Holder

    1,595
    727
    0
    Nov 27, 2007
    two movies?

    This is going to be even slower than LOTR... we are going to have not 10 different endings, but like 25
     
  10. Colorado Dolfan

    Colorado Dolfan ...dirty drownin' man?

    The Hobbit was definitely more geared towards children than LotR...

    I, myself, love both. :up:


    Not a huge fan of the two movies thing either...

    I was pretty pissed off at the end of "The Fellowship of the Ring" mainly because of the fact I would have to wait another year for the next movie...

    Concur.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2007
  11. vt_dolfan

    vt_dolfan Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    Well....pretty big Tolkien fan so I am very happy this is coming to fruition...

    From what I have been able to read...

    The two movies will break down something like this....

    1) The Hobbit

    2) The Hobbit and Other material Tolkien wrote...basically bridging the gap between the Hobit and LoTR.

    So, essentially there will be much more material in the second movie than what is in the Hobbit.
     
  12. SCall13

    SCall13 ThePhins QB

    Wow. LOTR Trilogy was easily one of the best movies ever made. And King Kong, though a bit too long, was great as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2007
  13. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Why? I don't think anyone who wasn't already a fan of these books would agree with you. Not many anyway. These movies will not stand the test of time, unless, you're a Tolkein geek.

    As far as King Kong goes, that movie was just really bad. The sentiments were forced upon you. Many scenes carried on waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy to long. Which added to the forced sentiments. The effects were incredible though.

    Peter Jackson's best work to date is still "The Frighteners". The pacing was great.
     
  14. finswin56

    finswin56 Get a mop

    8,281
    1,404
    0
    Dec 3, 2007
    St. Augustine
    IDK about that. I had only heard of the books a year or so before the first movie came out. I still haven't read them, but I loved the trilogy, and so did the majority of my friends (including my wife). None of us had read them. It's never easy to tell what will stand the test of time though.

    King Kong was pretty horrible.
     
  15. SCall13

    SCall13 ThePhins QB

    I guess the over $1 billion the movies grossed isn't evidence enough about the impact and greatness of the movies. And that proves there are A LOT of people who would agree with me -far more than would disagree that these movies were incredible.

    King Kong had it's flaws, but it was still a great movie. Yes, it was too long. And some of the scenes dragged, but that doesn't make it bad. It makes it flawed.
     
  16. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Making a lot of money does not equal a great movie. If that were true, no one makes a better burger than McDonald's, Yugos were better than Lamborghinis, and some the greatest movies of all time were Titanic & Independence Day. Not too mention one particular fantasy geek I know saw each one 3 times, bought the individual DVDs, then bought the super deluxe 3 pack. I'm sure he wasn't the only one, which would tend to throw off the numbers a bit.

    King Kong's flaws effected the overall experience, thereby making it bad. The cumulative effect of those flaws outweighed the strengths of that movie, which were only FX and cinematography.

    I am a movie nazi though. Mayne your the kind of guy that can finish a movie and go, "Was I entertained? Yes. Then that was a great movie." Maybe you think about nothing past that. That's great, if true.
     
  17. SCall13

    SCall13 ThePhins QB

    Looks like you have an entirely different view of what is good than I do. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
     
  18. cnc66

    cnc66 wiley veteran, bad spelur Luxury Box

    31,582
    17,137
    0
    Nov 23, 2007
    I think two is too long for the Hobbit, but the dragon scenes will be cool to see. I would rather they take on the Silmarillion instead tho, now THAT would move along. Maybe they will incorporate more of the "before" story like they did in LOTR from the Silmarillion.

    Joe, I have probably read the trilogy 10 times in the last thirty years, and I had real trouble with the first movie. I knew every time they deviated from dialog and story. The second one moved faster and was to me easier to watch and by Return of the King I was liking it alot. Doing it in reverse already up to speed with the complex relationships will make it an enjoyable first read. You will come away thinking what a good job the filmmakers did, but you will lament the rich detail that was left out.

    It was interesting to compare "my" vision of what the story "looked like" to the films.. I thought Smeagol to Gollum was better than my vision by a lot. I was sooo impressed with the physical acting in that part.
     
  19. finswin56

    finswin56 Get a mop

    8,281
    1,404
    0
    Dec 3, 2007
    St. Augustine
    Thanks for the head's up Marty. I've read several books that were turned to movies. The movies were always tough to swallow after reading the book first. I can't wait to read these books, although I'm in the middle of reading the entire Sherlock Holmes collection. At the current pace, I'll be able to start something new in about 10 years :eek:
     
  20. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    the thing of it is, the Hobbit preceeded the LOTR by 80 yrs, there is not a whole lot of filler between the two story lines, unless it is the hunt for Smeagol and the Fall of Saruman, there just isn't much there in the way of story arcs.

    The Fall of Numenur?

    The Kin Strife would be fun, the Simillarion would be a nightmare to make into films, and that book isn't as widely read.


    Now "what if" instead of the Hobbit being the first movie, the Last Alliance is the first movie? That would make more sense, you would have basically the same actors and characters as well.
     
  21. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    11,552
    4,456
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Detroit Metro Area MI
    Ive also read LOTR several times, and hit the earlier stuff as well, and Sil. would be very interesting to see in movie form.
    I loved all the films to date. I noticed all the deviations, but oddly I was not put off by that. But then I seem to be able to ignore those kinds of things and enjoy a film as its own entity, comparing only in hindsight after making a decision on whether I liked the film or not.
    I thought that perhaps the greatest thing the movies did was bring that fantasy world to life in such an incredible and beautiful form. I mean, there were hundreds of scenes you could have frozen and turned into a poster for instance. Just incredible.

    Only thing that killed me was the ending(s) of the last movie, just dragging on and on with all the false ends and then restarts. It wouldnt have even been so bad if he had seamed them together a bit instead of seemingly intentionally trying to make us think it was really over ... but not...but yes....no.....yes....no.

    Anyway, the dragon scenes I am hugely looking forward too as well, love that stuff.
     

Share This Page