TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Peter Jackson to executive produce `The Hobbit'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peter Jackson to executive produce `The Hobbit'

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
But... apparently, it will be a two-part film and may include `filler' material to flesh out the story - material written for the film, not from any of Tolkein's work. ALARM BELLS GO OFF. Jackson may not have any more of a role than executive producer - in other words, we may not have his creative genius at the director's helm of these films. MORE ALARM BELLS.

If these things are true, it makes me nervous. Surely, surely, New Line Cinemas who had such success with the LOTR trilogy, and did it absolutely properly, would not allow commerical pursuits to destroy the prequel to these books?

When does there come a point with big movie studios where integrity outweighs revenue?

I hope and pray they do this right - I really do. Poor movie adaptations of The Hobbit would permanently sour my LOTR experience, I fear.
post #2 of 16
I'm really looking forward to The Hobbit, especially with Ian McKellen as Gandalf.

The other film worries me a bit though. I't must be difficult to find enough material for it from the appendices, the more so since for the most part there isn't any dialogue. IMO one of the best things about the LOTR movies was that they had used so much of Tolkien's text.

OT: At first I hated all of the changes in the story they had made, but the need for most of them is actually very well explaned in the DVD extras.

Well, fingers crossed the new movies are going to be good.
post #3 of 16
Not convinced about it being 2 films
post #4 of 16
If the screenwriters can do the script well enough that it easily segues into LOTR - They're GRRRRRREAT.

However the thing I do hate the most about screenwriters is that they get a hold of something deemed a classic by many literary artists and then just rip the story to shreds because "that's not how he should have done it" or "people will get bored of watching this...let's have something exploid".

With the amount of special effects out there and 3-D animation available, there's little excuse [cheap budget] for not keeping to the story.
post #5 of 16
DH and I talked about this yesterday, and I think there is enough there for two films. There are around four major instances that happen in the book, so the best thing for him to do would be to split them two and two.

My main concern is the art design for Smog. I mean, he's really important, and if he turns out looking like a large lizard with some wings I'm going to be really upset.

If Jackson decides to use "filler" material I'm not going to object too much. Heck, when Kenneth Branagh made his four hour epic version of Hamlet (1996) he made up some stuff. Granted, that slightly more difficult to do, but filler material was used.

I just pray that Jackson uses almost unknown actors to play the main parts. A big actor would screw up the part because their ego would get in the way.
post #6 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
DH and I talked about this yesterday, and I think there is enough there for two films. There are around four major instances that happen in the book, so the best thing for him to do would be to split them two and two.

My main concern is the art design for Smog. I mean, he's really important, and if he turns out looking like a large lizard with some wings I'm going to be really upset.

If Jackson decides to use "filler" material I'm not going to object too much. Heck, when Kenneth Branagh made his four hour epic version of Hamlet (1996) he made up some stuff. Granted, that slightly more difficult to do, but filler material was used.

I just pray that Jackson uses almost unknown actors to play the main parts. A big actor would screw up the part because their ego would get in the way.
I agree about the unknowns - but not for ego reasons, but just because they are too familiar. There were some HUGE names in the LOTR films - and they were perfectly cast and no ego issues, either! I have still have some `comfort' issues with Hugo Weaving as Elrond - that never sat right for me, but I loved all the rest. Unfortunately I ddn't really like the way Galadriel was portrayed, either - but then I thought Liv Tyler was perfect as Arwen, and all the other casting I thought was perfect. Gollum was important - and Jackson got that spot on.

If anyone has seen Beowulf, the dragon in that was SO impressive. That is kind of how I picture Smaug - just a bit dirtier and older. I think he got everything else so right in terms of the CGI etc - I mean, they invented new technology for LOTR. Hopefully they will get it just as right with The Hobbit. And I agree - I think there's enough there for two films without having to make anything up.
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I agree about the unknowns - but not for ego reasons, but just because they are too familiar. There were some HUGE names in the LOTR films - and they were perfectly cast and no ego issues, either! I have still have some `comfort' issues with Hugo Weaving as Elrond - that never sat right for me, but I loved all the rest. Unfortunately I ddn't really like the way Galadriel was portrayed, either - but then I thought Liv Tyler was perfect as Arwen, and all the other casting I thought was perfect. Gollum was important - and Jackson got that spot on.

If anyone has seen Beowulf, the dragon in that was SO impressive. That is kind of how I picture Smaug - just a bit dirtier and older. I think he got everything else so right in terms of the CGI etc - I mean, they invented new technology for LOTR. Hopefully they will get it just as right with The Hobbit. And I agree - I think there's enough there for two films without having to make anything up.
Hold up... why is it that in my two different versions that I have of The Hobbit Smaug is spelled differently? One version: Smaug. The other: Smog.

Do I have some sort of weird Americanized version, or is this normal?

EDIT: I just have to share this with everyone. When the LoTR movies were coming out, my husband worked with a really pretty girl. She would hit on him, he'd blush, and talk about his wife. This was one of the conversations that they had.

Her: I just saw LoTR this weekend and I didn't like it.

Him: Oh, really? Why is that?

Her: Well, Hobbits are gross. Oh, and it's Middle Earth right? Why could you see the sky?

(half an hour later)

Him: OMG. The sky? Middle Earth is a TIME period not a physical location!

(He said that this was the reason he'd never cheat on me. I like video games, movies, and I understand why you can see the sky in Middle Earth)
post #8 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I have still have some `comfort' issues with Hugo Weaving as Elrond - that never sat right for me,
Have to agree there. Hated him for the part. Definitely need an unknown for Bilbo.
post #9 of 16
Not another one!! How long is this one going to be? 12 hours long. LOTR were about 2 hours too long each! That's a movie I am certainly not going to see
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass
Hold up... why is it that in my two different versions that I have of The Hobbit Smaug is spelled differently? One version: Smaug. The other: Smog.

Do I have some sort of weird Americanized version, or is this normal?
I don't think that is normal. Every copy that I have seen has Smaug as Smaug. I hope whatever they come up with for the golden one blows us away.

I still want some movies that deal with the First Age. I would love to see how Glaurang and Ancalagon the Black (first winged fire drake) would be portrayed.
post #11 of 16
I heard about this and that they are going to film here again.

That means casting calls for hobbits. I almost signed up for LOTR but ended up going to the States, so I might try again
post #12 of 16
I think there is enough for two movies, I mean Tolkien wrote what, a NINE volume of the history of middle earth....i think there's enough to tell the story of the Hobbit.
post #13 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlleyGirl View Post
Have to agree there. Hated him for the part. Definitely need an unknown for Bilbo.
Well, Bilbo would have to be Ian Holm again, wouldn't he? Considering he featured so much in the LOTR trilogy - they couldn't change him for The Hobbit.
post #14 of 16
I agree, Ian Holm needs to come back as Bilbo, Bilbo was afterall, in his what? late 40s in The Hobbit? Completely doable.
Ian McKellan was a superb Gandalf!

I did not care for Hugo Weaving as Elrond though, he was just too....creepy to be an elf lord.
post #15 of 16
Haha, Galadriel came off as really creepy too.

Did anyone else see all of the "Mr. Anderson" LotR jokes centered on Hugo Weaving/Elrond?



To be on topic though, I guess I'll just have to wait and see how things go. I thought the movies were done well, though there were a few things I wish they had done differently (especially the character of Faramir). But considering the epic size of the novels, Peter Jackson did an amazing job. I only hope that he can put as much heart and love into the Hobbit.
post #16 of 16
Hmm. I disagree with most people here about Hugo Weaving. I think he was a great Elrond. Also, IMO making Faramir almost succumb to the ring made the character better and more believeable. I agree the scene where Galadriel freaks out was stupid, though Cate Blanchett was otherwise perfect for the part.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Peter Jackson to executive produce `The Hobbit'