:rolleyes: The “right” and “correct” way? What determines “right” and “correct”? How is a movie “right” and “correct”? Is it the degree to which it duplicates the book? You already have the book, so nothing is going to out book the book. A slavish duplication would be pleasing to nobody.
Comfortable for the fanboys? Why, so they could sit with a checklist and ensure that all the bases were covered?
Where did Peter Jackson ever say that he “improved” upon the story?
Shouldn’t the standard be the degree to which it is a good or enjoyable movie?
To those of you who liked the book and the movies, I have nothing to say. My dispute is with those people who didn’t like the book but who like the movie. I think that there’s something slightly dishonest about making a movie of a book you don’t like by changing the things you like to be closer to books that you do like. Just go and make a film of the books you like.
And I object to the characterization of people who don’t think the movies are a very good as “fanboys.” In other words, you can’t be bothered to explain why you like the movies better than the books. You’d rather insult people by calling them names. That’s making personal insults instead of arguing. Why don’t you go through the movies and explain to us why you think that Jackson’s changes are better than the book, rather than calling us names?
It’s not the “right” way because if you are making a film OF a book, rather than an adaptation, you should stick to the story. Hence, filmed Shakespeare plays, or the filmed version of Pagliacci, done by Zefferelli.
If you are going to make up stuff and add it in, then say that the film is BASED upon the works of JRR Tolkein. But don’t present the film as the book itself. That’s the point I’ve made on the subject ever since the project was announced.
Personally, I enjoyed the movies, for the most part (I only really got ticked off over the poor treatment of Faramir). But I was disappointed the movies didn’t stick to the books, for the reasons I’ve stated.
Why do you two think that changing the story will make it more interesting? I agree that some parts will have to be cut out, that’s not a problem. But Jackson made numerous changes to the story, all of which I personally dislike. Which changes in particular is it that you like so much?
Yes, it is a good movie, and it deserves to be succesful. I think that most people agree that the visual aspects were well done. But it could’ve easily been an even better movie, that’s the problem.
I will note that I am not a “fanboy”, as such. I have just read and liked the books. I would disagree with stupid changes in movie adaptations to any of the books I have read.
The term “fanboy” has no meaning except “You like a book, film, or TV show that I don’t care for. Obviously no one who disagrees with my opinions should be listened to. Your like for books, movies, and TV shows that I dislike shows that you’re worthless and your opinions should be ignored.”
Hmmm. I use the term “fanboy” to mean fanatic. Particularly, fanatic to the point that one a: knows copious bits of arcane information about a topic, b: cops an attitude about the topic and their knowledge of it, and c: has a hard time coping with dissenting opinions about the topic.
I think of Comic Book Guy. people I knew who were really into D&D, and Star Trek convention stereotypes as examples.
If the term has some other connotation, more offensive than my intention, I do apologize for that.
mr jp, I guess all I can say about the changes that I liked is the change that made me not get really, really bored halfway through The Two Towers, and that it didn’t require me to start skipping paragraphs just to get through all the long trekking here and there. I liked that I didn’t have to keep saying “Okay, wait, which character of all the similarly named characters was he talking about there again?” I wouldn’t be able to tell you the first thing about what was added or changed, because I only read the books once, in high school.
True dat! For a long time I feared a novelization of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, because I suspected Jackson thought he had improved upon Tolkien. Aragorn or Faramir, for example as a wise, stern leader in exile who sometimes doubted his own decisions was not dramatic enough for Jackson. He had to reinvent them. Elrond too, not to mention Pippin, Merry, and Gimli. I thought only Eowyn and Wormtongue emerged relatively unscathed.
I agree in principle. I’m not sure what was excessive about the first Harry Potter movie, but certainly the sequels have benefited from decisive editing. Tom Bombadil would have slowed down the movie, but at some point I wanted The Fellowship of the Ring to slow down. The movie never made me feel at home in the Shire or Middle-earth. By the end of Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring, I think most readers are ready to settle down in Middle-earth, either the Shire, Rivendell, or Lòrien.
My sentiments exactly.
Staying on topic, I think a Jackson treatment of The Hobbit would be a mistake. He doesn’t understand that readers love The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings because of the author’s distinctive voice, personality, and authority. We trust Tolkien because his manner of story-telling assures us that he knows what he’s talking about. This is missing from the movies. Peter Jackson thinks he is adapting novels. In fact, he is adapting fairy tales and heroic romances, not novels at all.
I understand what you are saying. The movie is more action-packed. However, that is necessarily true for any proper adaptation of the story. It would be silly to spend one hour of the movie with footage of characters walking through the wilderness.
You know, I think we might be in agreeement here. I agree that the movie is well made and has good pace. And you might easily agree that the different script changes are stupid, if you could remember how the book described those characters / events.
That idea is gonna give me nightmares. If it comes into fruition I’ll be a sad man indeed.
You know what? I am selfish enough to want the Hobbit to remain untouched. I realize that it has already been made into graphic novels and cartoons and so on, but not in a rendition that stands out as the defeault interpretation of the book, the way Peter Jackson’s movies are.
I don’t hold much interest for his movies. I agreed on the first movie, Gandalf and Saruman were superbly casted, as was Sam. But the two others simply didn’t do it for me. Too much bad computer art, too much weird editing, too much Peter Jackson.
The Hobbit remains basically untouched by mainstream Hollywood affiliates. I sure hope it stays that way, 'cause the book has a charm that simply won’t be replicated to the silver screen.
I don’t know where someone would find the material to make a “LOTR prequel” movie coming in between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. If someone took anything from The Silmarillion or anywhere else in Tolkien’s works outside The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, they would have problems, since Saul Zaentz doesn’t own the cinematic rights to any part of Tolkien other than The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Tolkien estate owns the rights to everything else in Tolkien. I suspect that they would be unlikely to allow anyone to use material from any part of Tolkien’s works that they still own the cinematic rights to.
They could take stuff from the appendices in ROTK. Timelines, backstory about Aragorn & Arwen, earlier visits by them to Lothlorien, earlier history of the dwarves, the Sylvan elves, and so forth. Even the ride of Eorl the Young to the rescue of Gondor, back when threatened by the Wainriders, and their passage near Lothlorien. Aragorn’s hunt for Gollum, Aragorn’s stint as Thorondor in Gondor, serving Ecthelion, Baldor’s boast to enter the paths of the dead and its unfortunate outcome, the Fall of Helm Hammerhand, the end of the North Kingdom, etc etc etc.
This PJ/Hobbit story is the first I’ve heard of a 2nd prequel movie. Has there been any informed speculation (ie, did PJ drop any hints?) as to what the content of this movie would be?
I am now of the opinion that PJ tried to squeeze in four movies’ worth of material
into three, but I am stumped as to where to make the breaks between the films.
Release the 4th one in the following summer to record ticket sales?
John DiFool, no offense, but you could please not hit “enter” after you hit the end of the message box? The board coding and software will “wrap” your text for you, so it’s unnecessary.
> I suspect that they would be unlikely to allow anyone to use material from any
> part of Tolkien’s works that they still own the cinematic rights to.
Let me make a stronger statement. I’m now told that the Tolkien family has outright said that they won’t authorize anyone to make a film from the material in The Silmarillion. It’s possible that at some future time enough of the family that has vetoed the idea of such a film will die and the younger members of the family may feel differently. But then, eventually the copyright for the book will run out and anyone who feels like it can make a movie from Tolkien’s materials.
According to a news story just recently, Saul Zaentz says that he would prefer that Peter Jackson make the film of The Hobbit if there is one to be made.
