| Avian Gamers Network http://www.avian-gamers.net/forums/ |
|
| Anyone for "The Hobbit"? http://www.avian-gamers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18475 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rocklar [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Anyone for "The Hobbit"? |
W00t! Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema put their differences behind them (translation: one side paid up  ) and we could see "The Hobbit" in theaters in 2010 and it's sequel the following year. I've heard Rosie has been tapped to play Smaug.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2007/12/18/28150-peter-jackson-and-new-line-cinema-join-with-mgm-to-produce-%E2%80%9Cthe-hobbit%E2%80%9D/ |
|
| Author: | Dragon Fire [ Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
really? my understand had always been that New Line didn't own the rights to the hobbit just the LOTR... any case glad to see jackson on board... Im not so sure about the sequel to the hobbit... Shire life gets old after 30minutes |
|
| Author: | Master Gui-Jan [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dragon Fire wrote: really? my understand had always been that New Line didn't own the rights to the hobbit just the LOTR...
any case glad to see jackson on board... Im not so sure about the sequel to the hobbit... Shire life gets old after 30minutes The people who claim rights to the Hobbit have said that they would sell them the rights if Jackson agreed to do it. At least that is my understanding from an older Jackson interview. |
|
| Author: | Rocklar [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 2:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Dragon Fire wrote: Im not so sure about the sequel to the hobbit... Shire life gets old after 30minutes
Oh, come on...open yourself up to a little creativity!
I'm picturing Fox getting in on things after the sequel and then we could have "Proudfoots Gone Wild" and "The Shire's Top Model." Woohoo! |
|
| Author: | Onto Kracken [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Apparently the second film would cover Sauron getting kicked out of his early base in the woods, Gollum backstory and such. Sketchy. |
|
| Author: | Arindel [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Onto Kracken wrote: Apparently the second film would cover Sauron getting kicked out of his early base in the woods, Gollum backstory and such. Sketchy.
That sounds like their just trying to squeeze some extra dollars from unsuspecting fans. Where do I sign up?
|
|
| Author: | Xenus [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ive read the book, and i liked it, i hope the movie is at least as good, if not better 
|
|
| Author: | Madson [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Xenus wrote: ive read the book, and i liked it, i hope the movie is at least as good, if not better
There is a second Hobbit book? Wow, where in the hell have I been to never hear about this? |
|
| Author: | GodOfGophers [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Madson wrote: Xenus wrote: ive read the book, and i liked it, i hope the movie is at least as good, if not better There is a second Hobbit book? Wow, where in the hell have I been to never hear about this? There is no second Hobbit book. Or, rather, the LOTR is the Hobbit's sequel. My understanding is that the two movies would cover the one Hobbit book. It's a long story, so two movies makes sense. I had not read the part about the White Council's "attack" on Dul Guldur. Would be interesting to say the least, as very little was ever written about that part of Middle Earth's history. But, when did Peter Jackson ever care about stuff like that when he made his LOTR movies? I guess I might be the only person in the world that didn't like the movies. Some of the scenes were really good to see but for the most part I think Jackson distorted and ruined a near perfect masterpiece. I actually walked out of both The Two Towers and Return of the King. I don't think I've ever done that for any other movie. But I'm sure I'll fork over the money to see The Hobbit. A man can hope. |
|
| Author: | Madson [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GodOfGophers wrote: There is no second Hobbit book. Or, rather, the LOTR is the Hobbit's sequel. That's what I thought.GodOfGophers wrote: I actually walked out of both The Two Towers and Return of the King... Wow, what did you find so disappointing that you walked out?
|
|
| Author: | Dragon Fire [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
the movies were masterpieces within themselves...I don't think they necessarily did the books complete justice but They did I believe all a movie can do for such an amazing trilogy. Im not completely sure how you split the hobbit into two parts without one being slow and all plot development and lead up and the other being action intense and interesting. I don't think you would maintain the audience from the first to the second |
|
| Author: | Talon1977 [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was thinking the same, DF. The first movie, if it truly followed the storyline accurately would be slow. And I also agree that the movies were well-done movie versions. But every true LOTR fan knows they didn't quite line up with the books. |
|
| Author: | Rocklar [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maybe I'm too simplistic, but I never really expect a book when I go to see a movie. There's no way to completely show us a character's thoughts and inner monologue in a movie (voice-overs and fuzzy transitions only go so far  ).
That said there are so many things that can be done in a movie that a book will always lack. Love or hate the movies, the LoTR books didn't, and can never have the amazing and moving music the movies added. |
|
| Author: | GodOfGophers [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Hobbit is really full of adventure from the get go. The trolls and the orcs in the mountains and the forest and espcaing from the elves there. All could be distorted enough to make a good action film. Though how you will squeeze Orlando Bloom and his pointy ears in there is beyond me. Luckily Peter Jackson is on the job!
I never really expect much from a book to movie translation either, but having dreamed of seeing what is easily my favorite work of fiction tossed aside to make a fantasy-themed action movie was really more than I could stand. Again, I'll go see it, but won't expect anything. The Hobbit was THE book for me to get me into reading. Never before had I imagined that a book could be so much fun to read. |
|
| Author: | Arindel [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Rocklar wrote: Maybe I'm too simplistic, but I never really expect a book when I go to see a movie. There's no way to completely show us a character's thoughts and inner monologue in a movie (voice-overs and fuzzy transitions only go so far
). That said there are so many things that can be done in a movie that a book will always lack. Love or hate the movies, the LoTR books didn't, and can never have the amazing and moving music the movies added. I agree with everything Rocklar said. With regards to the movie, I think PJ followed the books about as well as you could expect and still have it be a movie. Otherwise, you would need a very long mini-series on TV to completely re-live the books. Even if you read the books (again) after the movies, I bet you would have a better visualization of the books. From the artistry of the scenes, I don't think he was off whatsoever . Obviously the plot had to be hastened and things left out.
One positive would be all those poems/songs he made...The last time I read the books (5-6 years ago), I really felt compelled to skip those 
|
|
| Author: | GodOfGophers [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Arindel wrote: Rocklar wrote: Maybe I'm too simplistic, but I never really expect a book when I go to see a movie. There's no way to completely show us a character's thoughts and inner monologue in a movie (voice-overs and fuzzy transitions only go so far ). That said there are so many things that can be done in a movie that a book will always lack. Love or hate the movies, the LoTR books didn't, and can never have the amazing and moving music the movies added. I agree with everything Rocklar said. With regards to the movie, I think PJ followed the books about as well as you could expect and still have it be a movie. Otherwise, you would need a very long mini-series on TV to completely re-live the books. Even if you read the books (again) after the movies, I bet you would have a better visualization of the books. From the artistry of the scenes, I don't think he was off whatsoever . Obviously the plot had to be hastened and things left out.One positive would be all those poems/songs he made...The last time I read the books (5-6 years ago), I really felt compelled to skip those And I think Jackson did what he wanted to because he felt he could make the story better or at least more viewable, story be damned. I understand that missing many parts of the book are inevitable in translating a book to movie but many things were changed, for reasons I can't understand and stuff was added, again dunno why. Why the animosity between Elrond and Aragorn? And why is Aragorn reluctant to recliam his forefather's kingdom? Why do the Elves of Lorien go to help the Men of Rohan? Why in all that is good and holy do the Elves in this movie have pointy ears??!!!??? The poems/songs is something no one would ever think to keep in the movies. I don't doubt most people don't care much for them. I find them to be an important part as they are often full of the history of Middle Earth. Again, no big deal to most, especially Jackson. There are certainly some parts that were nice to see in a film, but for the most part I think Jackson missed the boat on almost everything. But I've never been a guy that thinks there is any art in Film. And certainly not that movie. |
|
| Author: | Ravage [ Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
have only one thing to add to this thread.... i would love to see a movie based off the book "the silmarillion" It took everything that didn't make sense in the lord of the rings, and made it make sense... best book ever. |
|
| Author: | Madson [ Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
GodOfGophers wrote: But I've never been a guy that thinks there is any art in Film.
Ouch. This could easily spawn an entire new thread. |
|
| Author: | Rocklar [ Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Madson wrote: GodOfGophers wrote: But I've never been a guy that thinks there is any art in Film. Ouch. This could easily spawn an entire new thread. Oh, you know, some people...always gotta poke at every hornets nest they see.
|
|
| Author: | GodOfGophers [ Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ravage wrote: best book ever.
QFT |
|
| Author: | Talon1977 [ Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GodOfGophers wrote: Ravage wrote: best book ever. QFT Did we forget to include this in the charter again? No member is permitted to QFT Ravage. It's just not right! |
|
| Author: | Ravage [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Talon1977 wrote: GodOfGophers wrote: Ravage wrote: best book ever. QFT Did we forget to include this in the charter again? No member is permitted to QFT Ravage. It's just not right! My word is truth. |
|
| Author: | Azzameen85 [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ravage wrote: Talon1977 wrote: GodOfGophers wrote: Ravage wrote: best book ever. QFT Did we forget to include this in the charter again? No member is permitted to QFT Ravage. It's just not right! My word is truth. Uhh? What is "QFT" short for again? |
|
| Author: | Angelus [ Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quoted for truth. |
|
| Author: | X2-PB [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
GodOfGophers wrote: Why the animosity between Elrond and Aragorn? And why is Aragorn reluctant to recliam his forefather's kingdom? Why do the Elves of Lorien go to help the Men of Rohan? Why in all that is good and holy do the Elves in this movie have pointy ears??!!!??? Admittedly I haven't read the books in quite some time, but there is whole sections of the story that Tolkien included in appendices and didn't incorporate into the books proper. The main aspect of this was the love story between Arwen and Aragon. I seem to recall Elrond not wanting Arwen to marry Aragon as it would only lead to her grief (Elves being immortal and Humans being mortal). I thought the Elves did go to help the men of Rohan in the books?
As for making a movie of the Silmarillion, I think that would be very hard indeed as it is a collection of stories rather than one coherent one. Would probably be better as a TV series! The book itself, I found very hard to read. Took me three attempts to get through it completely. The first time I tried, was when I was 12 and I had just finished reading LotR. |
|
| Author: | GodOfGophers [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Elrond did not actually want Arwen to wed Aragorn, this is true. However, there was no animosity there. He simply stated that Arwen would not wed any man that was less than the King of Gondor and Anorien (both the north and south realms). Elrond was, essentially, Aragorn's foster father. Elrond's sons often travelled with Aragorn as well. When Aragorn heard this, he basically spent the rest of his life working to bring this about with the help of Elrond, it should be noted. And Rohan and the Elven of Lorien never helped each other out, at least not directly. It was another movie bit, made no doubt to help the plot. As if it needed it. |
|
| Author: | X2-PB [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I bow to your knowledge on the subject .... I'm going to have to read the books again! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|