Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: anxious

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > Introduce yourself! > anxious   
Hello to all,new to site.First read The Hobbit at age 9 and have been HUGE fan since.Thought they would never be able to do LOTR movies and do them justice but hats off to Peter Jackson and I hope new director does as well.
I have heard alot of talk on who will play who in new film and am anxious to see the cast list,does anyone know when final decisions will be made?
[quote="sauron0330":yx3rtn8j]Hello to all,new to site.First read The Hobbit at age 9 and have been HUGE fan since.[/quote:yx3rtn8j]

You're in good company then. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' /> Welcome!

[quote:yx3rtn8j]Thought they would never be able to do LOTR movies and do them justice but hats off to Peter Jackson and I hope new director does as well.[/quote:yx3rtn8j]

I don't know if you've visited Tolkien forums before, but you will likely learn soon that there is a, ah, stark difference of opinion on how well Jackson did. I'm not sure I'd say it's impossible to do the books justice though.

[quote:yx3rtn8j]I have heard alot of talk on who will play who in new film and am anxious to see the cast list,does anyone know when final decisions will be made?[/quote:yx3rtn8j]

Not much about casting is known. It's almost certain that Ian McKellen, Andy Serkis, and Hugo Weaving will be returning in their roles from LOTR, but other than that all that is known for sure are the rumours that have been publicly debunked. We probably won't see a full cast list until the films' budgets have been worked out, which will probably not happen until MGM (which owns some of the rights to The Hobbit and was going to co-finance them) is rescued from limbo by new ownership. As it is MGM is in the middle of selling itself after filing for bankruptcy and isn't in a position to finance anything.
Eldorion,
Believe me i have had many a discussion on how well Peter did with movies ,mostly face to face over cards,beers,even once on a bus.I also respect other peoples opinion and also did not think it was a perfect job,didnt like some of the liberty's taken with the characters,plot and storyline.But when you sit back and think of the scale of that project,the shear number of WORLDWIDE fans,and it truly was a first time tackling of a project of that magnitude,I thought it was done great.It has made me a Peter Jackson fan,I enjoyed his remake of King Kong and both me and my wife discuss often that we would like him to take Jaws and update it.Jaws truly was an iconic film along the lines of K.K. and there was alot of discussion of him redoing Godzilla,but with it redone twice in 10 years we believe he should tackle the Jaws film
[quote="sauron0330":2uzt77ws]But when you sit back and think of the scale of that project,the shear number of WORLDWIDE fans,and it truly was a first time tackling of a project of that magnitude,I thought it was done great.[/quote:2uzt77ws]

It wasn't really the first, there were the animated films. <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> And I don't think that the number of fans has any bearing on PJ's decisions to cut and change things from the story, and outright add new characters and storylines.

[quote:2uzt77ws]It has made me a Peter Jackson fan,I enjoyed his remake of King Kong and both me and my wife discuss often that we would like him to take Jaws and update it.Jaws truly was an iconic film along the lines of K.K. and there was alot of discussion of him redoing Godzilla,but with it redone twice in 10 years we believe he should tackle the Jaws film[/quote:2uzt77ws]

Don't get me wrong, I thought PJ's LotR films were great films (though poor adaptations), but I really didn't care for King Kong. The first third or so was okay, but then it turned into about 40 straight minutes of almost non-stop monster fighting. There was so much monster fighting that the Kong/Ann "romance" was barely developed. Frankly I didn't think it was convincing or touching since it got so little attention.

I've never seen Jaws, but my general attitude towards classic films is that they should be left alone. The original will almost always remain better known (look at King Kong, for example: on a recent visit - January - to the Empire State Building I noticed lots of merchandise based around the 1933 film, but no mention of PJ), plus I think it's just unoriginal and lazy to try to make money off of someone else's movie, especially a classic. (Note: this is about remaking original films, I have no problem with multiple adaptations of a book.)

In my opinion, of course. <img src='/images/smileys/smile.gif' border='0' alt='Smile Smilie' />
Great to have you here Sauron :mrgreen: ... ( :? that DOES sound odd <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> ).

I agree with you whole heartedly. Jackson's films are brilliant, and frankly AMAZING adaptations (no matter what a few Philistine Purists say :P :lol: ). It's rare indeed to have films that are as true to the books as Jackson's are (and that's even admitting that there WERE numerous alterations).

[b:k6niedq0]GB[/b:k6niedq0]
Just because other adaptations are bad too doesn't make PJ's better <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> , but I will certainly admit that it could have been far worse. Look at the recent Harry Potter movies. Those are bad adaptations (possibly worse than PJ's, though I haven't really thought about the comparison that much) AND bad movies. :roll:
Only GoF could be said to be a "bad" Harry Potter movie. And the other films weren't "bad" adaptations, they just weren't able to include the voluminous material in a 2 1/2 hour film.

And YES, the fact that most adaptations contain very little of the source material DOES make Jackson's films remarkable in comparison.

[b:25bdpz0n]GB[/b:25bdpz0n]
[quote:2c1llncs]Only GoF could be said to be a "bad" Harry Potter movie. And the other films weren't "bad" adaptations, they just weren't able to include the voluminous material in a 2 1/2 hour film.[/quote:2c1llncs]

I think all of the films since, and including, GoF have been fairly bad. They're stitched together rather clumsily in an episodic fashion that makes it hard to follow without knowing the story from the book. HBP was perhaps the worst because, in addition to the aforementioned part, the screen was so dark that one could barely see anything much of the time.

[quote:2c1llncs]And YES, the fact that most adaptations contain very little of the source material DOES make Jackson's films remarkable in comparison.[/quote:2c1llncs]

I wasn't talking about comparisons, so I don't see your point. It's like the old saying (paraphrasing), even a bottle of bad wine will taste good when it's surrounded by vinegar.
[quote:ysdak2i6][b:ysdak2i6]Eldo:[/b:ysdak2i6]
Just because other adaptations are bad too doesn't make PJ's better [/quote:ysdak2i6]

Sounds like a comparison to me. :lol:

[b:ysdak2i6]GB[/b:ysdak2i6]
What I've been trying to do (in this and in other threads) is to let PJ's adaptations stand or fall on their own merits, rather than comparing them to the merits of other adaptations. I don't think its any excuse to just say "well adaptaions X, Y, and Z were even worse!"
Personally, I think they they stand on their own, AND in comparison to other adaptations. But at least I have some company now. :lol:

[b:2zlnlgk7]GB[/b:2zlnlgk7]
I semi-agree with you, then. We probably shouldn't be discussing this in an intro thread though. :roll: :oops:
Just letting Sauron know he has some company <img src='/images/smileys/wink.gif' border='0' alt='Wink Smilie' /> .

[b:1m56mxb5]GB[/b:1m56mxb5]
I have to agree with Gandalf, if you look at PJ'S past films he had never taken on such an endeavor,just the pure cinematography alone should earn him some credit,the casting I thought was brilliant{including subbing in Aragorn,especially considering the man read the books on the way to New Zealand} If you consider the shear volume of info contained in Tolkiens novels it was amazing that a non-fan could watch the trilogy and come away with some understanding of the relationship between Frodo and Sam/Aragorn and Arwen/Gimli and Legolas and especially Faramir and his father.As far as redoing classic films, I think it depends on the genre, I would personally like to see classic horror/sci-fi/or action films redone with the new special effects capabilities as opposed to them redoing classics like The Out Of Towners,Harold and Maude and movies of that nature.Those movies were great because of the actors and screenplay alone,when you look at movies like War Of The Worlds,Star Trek,and King Kong they were improved by the new technology.Can you imagine LOTR done 15 years ago,every dwarf and hobbit would have had to be extras from The Wizard Of Oz, not a 6'2" man playing Gimli the dwarf.Just my opinion as a humble american
[quote="sauron0330":18qkdcfv]just the pure cinematography alone should earn him some credit[/quote:18qkdcfv]

I agree with this. Please know that although I'm a purist I think PJ (and, perhaps even more so, the other people on the project) did a really good in a lot of aspects. Especially since, as you point out, the films are able to stand alone and don't require a knowledge of the book to understand them. I actually find this even more important than staying faithful to the book when making an adaptation. A movie that can't stand on its own is a failure, in my opinion.

[quote:18qkdcfv]Can you imagine LOTR done 15 years ago,every dwarf and hobbit would have had to be extras from The Wizard Of Oz, not a 6'2" man playing Gimli the dwarf.[/quote:18qkdcfv]

Just to point out, the tricks that were used to make the hobbits and Gimli appear smaller aren't that technological, and could have been done 15 years ago. Forced perspective, different sized props/sets, and even occasionally just having one actor on their knees may require ingenuity, but not that much technology.
A humble American, sauron0330? Wow! You'll certainly get on well with me then! Everyone will tell you how humble an Australian I am.

Fantasy movies rise or fall on the strength of their scripts, their actors, their Directors and, of course, their technology. But the first three must be spot on to make a classic! Technology cannot stand alone.



Odo Banks