As the farce that is TH films slowly creaks onwards all I feel is a sense of growing and creeping dread with every new bit of news that comes out.

James Cameron would be an awesome LotR director, but I'm not so sure about The Hobbit.

[b:2l3qgzyu]GB[/b:2l3qgzyu]

Well said Tin, couldnt agree more.

I completely disagree with Tinny's characterization of Cameron; however, I don't think he is a good match for the Hobbit.

As to Ratner and Dobkin, I couldn't agree more Petty.

[b:3te628sv]GB[/b:3te628sv]

I couldn't agree more Eldo. You echoed most of my thoughts regarding Cameron.

My objection to Cameron as being suited to The Hobbit, is that he makes rather Earnest, Serious films. He doesn't seem to have the sense of "Whimsy" , required. If anything, by including such elements as a "surfing" or "skateboarding" Legolas in LotR, Jackson has shown that he IS capable of it, though Del Toro's input (should it remain a part of the films) should also go a long way to ensuring that The Hobbit will retain it's Magical Charm.

[b:3jlkxtvs]GB[/b:3jlkxtvs]

I hope we don't get anything [i:3falgv9h]too[/i:3falgv9h] serious whoever the Director is. This is not Lord of the Rings after all.

My objection to Cameron is that he is (in the words of Captain Picard) a flim-flam man. He distracts with gimmicks and corn in order to distract you from the complete lack of substance in his films.
From the list you give Eldo I remember enjoying Terminator, although it is years since I have seen it. But it wasn't very big on plot so much as set pieces.
Aliens is a poor relative of Alien and does a decent job of distracting you (first time through) from the fact you could write the entire plot on the back of a stamp.
Titanic dazzles with big effects but it is an awful film, if you doubt that I suggest watching A Night to Remember, made in 1958 and 100x a better, more chilling, honest telling of the Titanic disaster.
Avatar is all showmanship with some very poor heavy handed morality tacked on and is most notable for the fact Cameron plunders his own back catalogue for reusable ideas.
So no, not Cameron for TH, I'd like a decent telling of the tale not a lot of gimmicks and cheap tricks from a smoke and mirrors director.

You are both SO wrong. Cameron's films are certainly Stylish and Flashy, but the stories are nothing if not Substantive . I don't see how you could make such an unfounded blanket statement Petty.

[b:1ss0a0v8]GB[/b:1ss0a0v8]

I am with you pretty much about Titantic and Avatar, Petty and Tinuviel. Surficially they are good movies, big on style and to some degree ejoyable, but not with anything particularly enthralling about them. I like some B Grade movies, not all B Grade movies are that bad, but when all is said and done that's what I find these two to be. Expensively made B Graders.

I don't know if this is really the thread to make the point, but can I say I think the problem with adaptations (at least according to my rule of thumb) is that the Directors who make adaptations of Great Books are rarely Great enough, that is: brilliant, confident, competent, humble or brave enough to film them truly. It's somewhat nonplussing to me that books that are famous, enjoyed by millions, aren't good enough to be filmed as accurately as reasonably possible. If I stole a half (or third?) of a book to put into my own book, it would be plagiarism, and I feel some movies are really plagiarising stories, not bringing the author's (loved) vision to the screen. My view has always been that if you've got lots of good ideas, why not turn them into your own story? And, also, why cut down an olive tree for firewood and leave the olives to rot on the ground? (I'm thinking just now of Tom Bombadil's omission from Peter Jacksons' movies as a matter of fact, but there are many others in his work - and, of course, there are some ghastly additions as well! ) :-Jane

Jane, you and I are 200% on the same page The reason all of these adaptations are never as good as the book is because of the directors arrogance, I think, or the book simply was never meant to be made a movie. If you're going to make a movie adapation of a book, then you're simply putting the words on the screen, and possibly altering it to fit the demands of film. If you want to create a story FROM another story, then don't give it the same title
PJ was lucky though. Since Tolkein literally created another world, he had so much to use and not use that he kind of blended the movies into the trilogy and then some. I feel as though he wanted to share as much of Tolkien as he could with us, but also showing his own twist. Whether his "twist" is good or not is up to the bias of the viewer, but I respect his judgement (though not always agree with it...)

I agree GB that you can't adapt a book perfectly, the mediums are different the story telling techniques are different. But PJ deciding Frodo will send home Sam in favour of Gollum, to take but one example, is not a change which falls into these categories, there is no reason based in it being a different medium to change the story here. Arguably what PJ contrived was harder to film than what Tolkien wrote for those three characters. He went beyond adaptation and decided he could 'improve' the story by altering what happens. That is something completely different from necessary change due to medium. And very arrogant when the work in question has been read and loved by so many and was a life times work to produce for its author.
I fail to see GB how you can defend PJ on such changes on the basis of adaptation.

[quote="Gandalfs Beard":387dibfw]No, the reason adaptations often don't live up the book are because: A) they are different mediums, and B) no director can precisely match what you imagine when reading a book.[/quote:387dibfw]

I think that largely depends on what you mean by 'living up to the book'. In my (admittedly limited) experience of viewing adaptations, most directors seem to want to add their own material to the story to a fairly large degree. At that point I have to wonder if they have any reason for not making an original movie aside from adaptations being safer financial bets. A lot of those changes have nothing to do with the medium, it's just change for the sake of change (or for the director's personal preference or in an attempt to bring in even more moviegoers). At that point I can understand why a lot of fans of the original work feel let down by the adaptation.

I don't mean that to be a judgement on all adaptations though, and I'm sure there are exceptions.

You know, all this "Jackson/Cameron B movie director" stuff is BS . If you think Jackson's or Cameron's films are horrible...FINE...but all those OSCARS, Zillions of FANS, and the CRITICAL ACCLAIM say otherwise .

[b:2mbum3nz]GB[/b:2mbum3nz]

I'm not sure where this notion that movies have to be 'intelligent' came from. I don't want to be beaten over the head with plot points as if I can't understand them, but I don't need any deep meaning, lots of unexpected plot twists, moral ambiguity, or whatever else is currently seen as intelligent entertainment. I just want a good story. That's just about the only reason I like stories. And petty, about LotR and entertainment, Tolkien's stated purpose in writing the book was as follows:

[quote="Foreword to the Second Edition":2qfkc43o]The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.[/quote:2qfkc43o]

In short, Tolkien wanted to write something entertainment. Clearly he didn't want something mindless and wished to connect with people on an emotional level, but it's still 'just' entertainment.

[quote="pettytyrant101":2qfkc43o]Avatar had mass appeal but was not good (its not intelligent, its eye candy and its moral is jingoist and simplistic but its entertaining eye candy)[/quote:2qfkc43o]

I'm a little tired of hearing this, so if the following comes off as aggressive, I apologize. It's not meant personally.

The most striking feature of Avatar was it's revolutionary visuals, especially when seen in 3D. To put it simply, Avatar pushed computer-generated visuals further than ever before in a big blockbuster but was still able to have a generally realistic (as much as possible when on an alien world) look that didn't scream 'I was made in a computer!'. It's story, however, is still both entertaining and emotionally powerful to a large number of people, even though those are subjective measures and thus not agreed upon by everyone. Black and white are painted incredibly starkly, but this is a feature in many fantasies, including LotR and Star Wars. Sometimes black-white moralities can even be a good thing: it's sometimes nice to have a clear villain to jeer at and a clear hero to cheer for.

Also, if you want to complain about the moral of Avatar, complain about it for its neo-Luddism. It's hardly jingoistic: the main protagonist actually turns against not only his country but his entire planet. Personally I don't find anything objectionable about the idea that you should do the right thing even when everyone around you won't, though.

That said, I do agree that box office draw is not always a good indicator of quality. As you say, Twilight.

Got to admit I choose Avatar as an example out of a sense of mischief but my objection holds. You can't judge the quality of a film on popularity or commercial success- which is what you implied originally GB. And worse you can have a huge commercial success and popularity and be a poor film (such as Twilight or LoTR) and my fear is TH will also be a huge commercial success and be a poor film.
As to Tolkien wanting to create a popular book- of course he did, what writer doesn't want people to enjoy their writing? The difference is Tolkien didn't cynically sit down and look at spreadsheets and trends to see what he might write that would be popular and make him shed-loads of money. He wrote with heart, love and passion and hoped people would like it because of that, that's the attitude I would like to see TH made in. Thats how I define intelligence in the arts - when the project itself is the most important thing, not the outcome financialy or measured in mass appeal.

Happy Independence Day USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fireworks were great, though we didn't have any dragons around where I live.

Ah! Independence Day. What could be more Hobbitish than merry feasting and fireworks?

[b:qj0roslj]GB[/b:qj0roslj]

[quote="pettytyrant101":3vwu1psk]Del Toro had brought comic book artists on board to supplement the work of Howe and Lee, I wonder if they have been retained through all this?[/quote:3vwu1psk]

This is something that has worried me to a degree. As far as I know Lee and Howe are not working on the film, which has been a disappointment to me. As much as I stress the differences in the stories of TH and LOTR, a similar visual style would in my opinion be good.

[quote:3vwu1psk]Del Toro was also very keen to move away it seems from full on CGI for the creatures and was talking up using cutting edge animatronics with CGI elements[/quote:3vwu1psk]

With the notable exceptions of Gollum and some of the larger armies, PJ showed a great deal of restraint with using CGI in LOTR. I hope that this remains the case with TH for the reasons you mentioned.

[quote:3vwu1psk]"The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point'."

Which I agree with, he later changed his mind but I think his gut instinct was right here.[/quote:3vwu1psk]

I agree, particularly about the break point being artificial. I would add that The Hobbit is better left as the story of Bilbo and the Quest of Erebor without any artificially engorged side-stories added.

[quote:3vwu1psk]'Del Toro and Jackson considered the sudden introduction to Bard the Bowman and Bilbo being unconscious during the Battle of the Five Armies to be "less cinematic moments" reminiscent of the novel's more "fairy tale world" than The Lord of the Rings, which they would change to make The Hobbit feel more like the trilogy.'

This sort if thing worries me as I assume things were far enough along that most of these script elements will be retained no matter who directs now.[/quote:3vwu1psk]

I think this is reflective of the overall attitude of the film-makers which quite perturbs me. The "fairy tale world" and story is the [i:3vwu1psk]point[/i:3vwu1psk] of The Hobbit. Clearly, however, the film-makers are not interested in making a film that is faithful to the (dare I say it?) spirit of the original in this way.

[quote:3vwu1psk]'Del Toro spent his mornings writing, and afternoons looking at material related to Tolkien to help him understand the writer's work. He watched World War I documentaries and asked for book recommendations from Jackson, who is a collector of World War I memorabilia. Del Toro felt Tolkien's experiences in that war influenced his stories'

Warnings about allegory spring to mind here!![/quote:3vwu1psk]

Warnings, certainly, though Tolkien's life experiences may well have influenced his writing, perhaps unconsciously, without making them allegory (which they clearly weren't). That said, thinking about WWI suggests that del Toro may have been planning to make The Hobbit more of a war film.

[quote:3vwu1psk]'Del Toro was faced with two possible places to split the story, including Smaug's defeat. He noted the second film would need to end by leading directly into The Fellowship of the Ring. In June 2009, Del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves.'

There's is no way to know at this stage if the films will still be split at whatever mystery point is implied here- I'm not sure I know what he is saying. And who are these fans they ask? Never seem to see anyone from the films hanging about here asking us what we think,not unless PJ comes on in disguise. If so I hope he appreciates honest opinions strongly voiced![/quote:3vwu1psk]

Based on this I think it's likely that the split will occur in or right after Mirkwood, where the dwarves begin to respect Bilbo more. BTW, the fans they mention are the members of the message boards at TheOneRing.net, where del Toro is a member (he posts as 'Guillermo'). TORn has always had a special relationship with the film-makers.

Interesting quotes and even more interesting thoughts, petty.

Yes, TH is a Fairy Story. As to people who would try to interfere with that fact - or make alterations to satisfy their (frankly inadequate) sub-creative urges - I say: "Off with their heads!"

[quote="pettytyrant101":5jzm9gce]If only Odo, if only. There should be some sort of suitable punishment for abusing [b:5jzm9gce]what will most likely be the only oopportunity to make TH film in my lifetime[/b:5jzm9gce]. Chopping off of heads does not seem to harsh to me.[/quote:5jzm9gce]

petty ... you almost sound as if you ... [i:5jzm9gce]want[/i:5jzm9gce] there to be movies!

How about we just open a Post-Jacksonification Trauma Center for you and Odo instead?

[quote="Tinuviel":3auac3i1]And if they ARE making the hobbit into 2 movies and ARE making it more like the trilogy and ARE adding in more tolkein things, then they shouldn't call it the Hobbit.[/quote:3auac3i1]

Agreed. It's not really a question of "if" though: the two film structure has been confirmed for some time, as has the LOTR-izing. I can go look up some links if you'd like.

If I were you I'd be hoping for MGM to wallow in financial limbo for years as they struggle to find a solution to their problems. Then maybe everyone will get bored but in 10 years someone new will come along to make The Hobbit.

Then again, it's possible this someone new would do it even worse.

Well its plain enough what you are getting at Tin. A Tyrant started this moaning a Tyrant should finish it!