Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
The Hobbit film
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Fortean Culture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
H_JamesOffline
Ancient Cow (&)
Joined: 18 May 2002
Total posts: 3495
PostPosted: 22-12-2007 18:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did think the lotr films were pretty awful... why the hell split the hobbit into two? It's only a short book anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Hogarth999Offline
Great Old One
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Total posts: 160
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-12-2007 22:09    Post subject: Reply with quote

Money of course - The Hobbit would comfortably work at about 3 hours, but they just have to squeeze every last penny out of the public so they're going for 'filler' material too, ie taking information present in the Appendices to LoTR to fill in the gaps between The Hobbit and LoTR.

Whatever you do, don't think that artistic integrity has anything to do with this two films decision - with Jackson, New Line et al running (or should that be ruining?) the show all we can expect is another dumbed down, incoherent, bastardised, action filled CGI-fest.

Cynical? Moi? You betcha after the hack and slash job Jackson performed on LoTR. It could (and should) have been so good too. I'll say it again - Jackson is a hack.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 22-12-2007 22:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

H_James wrote:
I did think the lotr films were pretty awful... why the hell split the hobbit into two? It's only a short book anyway.

Exactly. The chance of making one half decent movie, or two halves of a rip off. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile 
skinny46Offline
Doesnt believe in the
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Total posts: 85
Location: The Town of Machine, SA
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 10:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hogarth999 wrote:
Obviously the majority will disagree with me on this
I gladly submit to the mainstream opinion about Jackson being a first-rate choice for the adaptations. Have you any support for your misguided views on this?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 12:48    Post subject: Reply with quote

skinny46 wrote:
Hogarth999 wrote:
Obviously the majority will disagree with me on this
I gladly submit to the mainstream opinion about Jackson being a first-rate choice for the adaptations. Have you any support for your misguided views on this?

Opinion is, as they say, free. I must admit, I doubt if I have ever seen slower, more ponderous, or more pretentious, series of movies, than Jackson's LotR.

Sorry, any three films, almost 9 hours long in total, which give about the last half hour over to the lead characters all standing around going, "Well, cheerio then!" "Cheerio!" "Bye, bye!" "Miss you! Bye!" "Yes! Cheerio!" etc. etc. whilst totally missing out an important, if not pivotal episode, where the young hobbits return to the Shire and see off attempts to industrialize the place, in the wake of Saruman and Wormtongue, have to be at least slightly, badly edited and massively self indulgent.

Then the idiot went and did it again, with his 3 hour, 'King Kong!' Shocked

Sorry, it is a truth universally acknowledged, that a bad director in possession of too big a budget and no sense of when to stop, must be in want of a good editor.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Black River FallsOffline
I wear a fez now.
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Total posts: 7407
Location: The Attic of Blinky Lights
Age: 45
Gender: Female
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 14:23    Post subject: Reply with quote

it's a pity really. he did really well with his films when he had bugger all budget Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
stunevilleOffline
Admin
Joined: 09 Mar 2002
Total posts: 8613
Location: FTMB HQ
Age: 47
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 14:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
I must admit, I doubt if I have ever seen slower, more ponderous, or more pretentious, series of movies, than Jackson's LotR.

Sorry, any three films, almost 9 hours long in total, which give about the last half hour over to the lead characters all standing around going, "Well, cheerio then!" "Cheerio!" "Bye, bye!" "Miss you! Bye!" "Yes! Cheerio!" etc. etc. whilst totally missing out an important, if not pivotal episode, where the young hobbits return to the Shire and see off attempts to industrialize the place, in the wake of Saruman and Wormtongue, have to be at least slightly, badly edited and massively self indulgent.
Well, personally I thought "Fellowship of the Ring" was well done, pacey, detailed enough, etc, Two Towers sort of lost the momentum about an hour in, and Return of the King was a dog's breakfast (and as you say, the ridiculous farewell scene just prompts me to fast-forward - in fact, when I first saw it in the cinema, the audience all started murmuring, studying their watches and looking around after a while: never a good sign.) Also, why on Earth (middle or otherwise) did he cut a whole swathe of Saruman out of the final cut, which peeved Christopher Lee mightily as it was not only important stuff, but a performance of which Lee was hugely proud?

He could have lost at least thirty minutes from Ep 1, and at least an hour from both eps 2 and 3. As for Kong, much as I like the film (and I do), I have to agree that it's twice as long as it should be.

Wonder what the state of play with his "Dambusters" is? With Andy Serkis as the RAF, the Mohne Dam and TRIGGER the dog...
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail 
gncxxOffline
King-Size Canary
Joined: 25 Aug 2001
Total posts: 13231
Location: Eh?
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 18:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least Jackson got the line "Nobody tosses the dwarf!" in there. It's what Tolkien would have wanted.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Quake42Offline
Warrior Princess
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Total posts: 5643
Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 27-12-2007 23:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Well, personally I thought "Fellowship of the Ring" was well done, pacey, detailed enough, etc, Two Towers sort of lost the momentum about an hour in, and Return of the King was a dog's breakfast


TBH, that was my view of the books.

It'a alsmost heresy to say so, but a lot of what Tolkien wrote was verging on unreadable. All Jackson did was take the books and film them - rather well IMO.

From memory the only major change to the storyline was Saruman's untimely death and the resulting ditching of the scourging of the Shire. I don't think it made a huge difference to the story and allowed the saga to end on an upbeat note.

I think he will do an excellent job of the Hobbit. My understanding is that there will be two movies because a "prequel" will also feature.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 28-12-2007 00:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quake42 wrote:
...

From memory the only major change to the storyline was Saruman's untimely death and the resulting ditching of the scourging of the Shire. I don't think it made a huge difference to the story and allowed the saga to end on an upbeat note.

...

Let me see, 'The Scourging of the Shire,' showing how the World was changing, affecting even The Shire, with the coming of the Time of Man, or half an hour of tearful goodbyes, the most naked, titty twisting, attempt to drain the audience's emotions, since ET phoned home... which to choose?

Psychout
Back to top
View user's profile 
Quake42Offline
Warrior Princess
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Total posts: 5643
Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 28-12-2007 00:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Let me see, 'The Scourging of the Shire,' showing how the World was changing, affecting even The Shire, with the coming of the Time of Man, or half an hour of tearful goodbyes, the most naked, titty twisting, attempt to drain the audience's emotions, since ET phoned home... which to choose?


The last half hour of RotK was certainly about 20 minutes too long. But I don't think that replacing it with grim footage of hobbits being enslaved and tortured would have improved the film in any way, or indeed done anything other than please Tolkien fanboys.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 28-12-2007 01:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quake42 wrote:
...

The last half hour of RotK was certainly about 20 minutes too long. But I don't think that replacing it with grim footage of hobbits being enslaved and tortured would have improved the film in any way, or indeed done anything other than please Tolkien fanboys.

I think I see your point, why let something as unimportant as the actual story get in the way of a tedious and boring attempt at a feel-good, glamour-town, movie ending? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
PeripartOffline
is still wondering
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Total posts: 2920
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 28-12-2007 14:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
Quake42 wrote:
...

The last half hour of RotK was certainly about 20 minutes too long. But I don't think that replacing it with grim footage of hobbits being enslaved and tortured would have improved the film in any way, or indeed done anything other than please Tolkien fanboys.

I think I see your point, why let something as unimportant as the actual story get in the way of a tedious and boring attempt at a feel-good, glamour-town, movie ending?

I certainly won't promote the apparent heresy that Jackson improved on Tolkien, but generally, I agree with Quake, and feel that he remained very faithful to the spirit of the stories, whilst doing some necessary trimming (or buggering about, if you insist) to make the whole thing work for a cinema audience. And, in fairness, the Scouring of the Shire was shown, if only as a "vision" sequence to show Frodo a possible future for his people, and to make him more dtermined in his mission. A cop-out, maybe, but one that worked for me.

Let's face it - some people won't be happy with an adaptation unless it's word-for-word, but I can't bring myself to over-criticise Jackson for the version he brought to the screen. I therefore welcome him as producer of The Hobbit, whilst retaining reservations about the need for two films.
Back to top
View user's profile 
skinny46Offline
Doesnt believe in the
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Total posts: 85
Location: The Town of Machine, SA
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 29-12-2007 07:56    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peripart wrote:
he remained very faithful to the spirit of the stories, whilst doing some necessary trimming (or buggering about, if you insist) to make the whole thing work for a cinema audience. .
Hello, and thankyou. It wouldn't have mattered what director worked the story, it would always be just an interpretation to which a certain %age would inevitably take offense. Taken, all in all, as a work to win a mass audience, it works relatively well. The text had 50 years of exposure in the popular imagination, each seasoned reader bringing their own preconceptions to the cinema with them. The pedantic fringe will forever satisfy themselves with knocking it for the sake of knocking it. I too hated moments, inevitably, but can cringe through those moments and still enjoy the overall vision for what it is. It was never meant to be a bloody 'art film'. Get Heavenly Creatures from your video shop. If you still think Jackson is still a 'hack' (what does that even mean anyway?) you have no business commenting on cinema at all.

Hands up if you'd like David Lynch to direct The Hobbit...
hello
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 29-12-2007 13:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

skinny46 wrote:
...

Hands up if you'd like David Lynch to direct The Hobbit...
hello

Or, why not go for broke and get Rob Zombie to do it? yeay
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Fortean Culture All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 2 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group