I am surprised that so many of you consider Peter Jackson a bad writer - and berate him for the changes he made to Tolkien. I can understand that if you are a purist then, yes, his interventions must rankle, but I really thought that he made the whole story work cinematographically (I hope there is such a word) and, on the whole, were positive. His ear for dialogue was very good - I personally found the relationship between Strider and Arwen to be extremely poignant though expressed in very few but telling words.
I personally am glad that he is not writing the Hobbit - if only because it frees him up to do other work in new genres. However, I also believe like the industry insider who posted earlier that his ‘It is with great regret that i announce new Line have fired me like a common pygmy’ communication is just another play and that he will indeed eventually helm the movice.
Personally, I thought he turned LOTR into just a typical Hollywood action flick. I thought the battles were ridiculous and over the top, way too many orcs and the scenewhere Legolas is sliding on the elephants tusks were just ridiculous (IMHO). I also didn’t like how they turned Gimli into the R2D2 of the series, and hated the stupid lines like “no one tosses a dwarf.” In general, I feel that he robbed the story of its epic sweep and made it just typical.
The corresponding scene in the books is my all-time favorite, so this is the single most disappointing change that Jackson made (and, overall, I love his trilogy).
In the book, the witch king directs the use of the battering ram (Grond) against the gates of Gondor, and rides (horseback) into the city, alone. Gandalf is there to meet him. They engage in some smack-talk, the WK raises his sword, wreathed in flames (like in the movie), but he doesn’t break Gandalf’s staff (I don’t think any being in Middle Earth could have) - then the horns of Rohan sound, and the confrontation ends.
Those are all cases where a director took a mediocrely good book and remade it as something good. If you’re a good director, I suspect it’s easier to fix something that’s lacking than to perfectly recreate something that’s already good–if only because there’s no real point otherwise.
And I seriously doubt that you would want to see a Coppola directed Hobbit…
Don’t forget, PJ didnt’ do all the writing–that woman did some (Phillipa somebody-she’s quite annoying on the EE versions).
I like the trilogy, but I’m no Tolkien diehard, either. Frankly, I prefer The Hobbit over LOTR as books. As to the films made-I missed Tom Bombadil terribly and the wreaking havoc in the Shire (forgot its official name) was a critical omission.
I don’t think that Frodo’s and Sam’s relationship was correctly interpreted–these seemed too much like equals, not master/servant (given the era and time in which Tolkien wrote).
Eowyn was one of the few characters who was done very very well, IMO. Borormir and Aragorn were too, as were Gandalf and Frodo (and Pippin and Merry). Arwen was wooden-I saw no reason for Aragorn’s devotion in the film. And Elrond was a jerk. But I digresss…
I also found the elves wrong, wooden and stiff–and the elves are merry and drink, a lot–that scene with Legolas and Gimli doing the drinking game and Legolas’ fingers get a little numb etc. I find myself impatient with it-enough with the macho camaraderie, like there isn’t enough of that already in the film-and it’s not true to the elves.
All that said, PJ shoud do the Hobbit. I hope they film in the same place as they did the Shire–and with the same set design.
“Boromir, never take sides agains the Fellowship again.”
“I know it was you, Pippin–you broke my heart.”
“Leave the sword, take the lembas.”
“It’s an old Morodrian message. It means Isildur sleeps with the fishes.”
There’s a character they don’t have to worry about aging too much before the film is made, ha ha. Yes, I wouldn’t have anyone else doing Gollum now.
It looks as though Ian Holm will be far too old by the time The Hobbit ever gets made to play Bilbo again, unfortunately. But how about that actor from The Office, the original British version - the one who plays Tim? I thought he looked and acted very hobbit-y from square one. In fact, I e-mailed his agent once to tell him so.
I don’t want Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit. Jackson’s *The Lord of the Rings *was quite enough, thank you. It was a good movie trilogy, but not a great one. Without going into detail, I agree with others who have complained about unnecessary changes to the story for the sake of action scenes. I also think that Jackson doesn’t understand Hobbits or Dwarves. The prosecution calls Merry, Pippin, and Gimli to the stand. Please state for the record: Is it true or is not true that your complex characters were reduced to figures of comic relief?
SuaSponte:
I agree. I think you bring up a very important point. The Hobbit is a very different kind of story.
Menocchio:
This is a marvelous solution, although I’m afraid the point might be lost on those not familiar with the books. In keeping with your suggestion, the story Bilbo narrates would have to include the lie he promulgated about finding the Ring (that it was the intended present from Gollum for winning the Riddle-game).
mr. jp:
I, too, was disturbed by that gratuitous departure from the book.
eleanorigby, I echo your sentiments about Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire. I believe both could have been incorporated into Jackson’s version if he understood how intrinsic they are to Middle-earth and the story Tolkien was telling.
I confess to an endless fascination with Bombadil-him and the Baer (sorry, I dont’ really remember the names-he of course, comes in the Hobbit anyway). They are interesting characters, who stand out against the orcs, elves and men. I wish Tolkien had written more of them (never was a Simarillon fan, sorry). I wanted to read more about the man who turns into a bear and protects his creatures etc. But then, I like A.S. Byatt quite a bit.
The Scouring is of course key to the story, but Bombadil? He’s come to be a symbol of “the other” in the universe (and I think that was retconned into the legendarium even by JRRT himself), but he doesn’t seem intrinsic to the tale.
None of the prequels/sequels to 2001 A Space Odyssey came close to Stanley Kubrick’s work, and I feel the same way about handing The Hobbit to anyone other than Jackson.
I wonder if any other directors would even touch it out of respect for Peter Jackson and their own careers?
I’d certainly be willing to bet that without Jackson, McKellen, Serkis, Holm, and everyone instrumental to the production of the previous films (Richard Taylor, Howard Shore, Andrew Lesnie, etc.) will have nothing to do with it. New Line would have to start from scratch, which elevates the risk of such an enterprise enormously.
I want him to make it. I have been hoping he would. I find it very dissapointing.
No, he didn’t follow the books exactly. And some of the changes were not necessary. But I do feel some were. I’m glad Tom Bombadil and others were left out, they did nothing for the story. I know this is somewhat heretical around here, but oh well.
