PJ won't direct "The Hobbit"

I'm totally in the minority here, but I always liked the Hobbit (novel) much more than the Lord of the Rings. I always thought that it would be the natural choice to begin with. It moves along briskly and there is lots of action and a more well paced story, I feel. Think about it, Mirkwood forest... Smaug?

How about Nicol Williams for a wizened Gandalf then, if we're not using the same director/cast?
 
This is not cool. I don't think they can hand this project over to another director and expect to get the same quality as The Lord of the Rings. It's not going to happen, especially if WETA won't be on board.

The second prequel film they mentioned in the article interests me, though. The Silmarillion, perhaps? (Hopefully not something along the lines of The Adventures of Young Frodo Baggins...)
 
1. The Hobbit was never made for starters it is too much Harry Potter. The thing about Harry Potter and the Hobbit is that they start off as children and for children which brings us to Conan.

Conan the book he was a child into slaverly camps and then blah blah became a man.

If they showed Conan the boy growing up do you think they would have created a Movie for a man. Then agian the chapters of Conan childhood exisists?

Conan like the Hobbit and LOTR had generations of children into adults.

Now back to the topic of LOTR they showed the LOTR series rather then the Hobbit series fearing it would turn into a childish Willow series.

If you don't remember Willow this is the reason they never made the movie the Hobbit.

The Hobbit over comes many challenges but when compared to the challenges of the LOTR series the Hobbit looks like Legend of Zelda the adventure of Young Link.

So again LOTR went a couple pages ahead of itself to make an advance at the
Conan look of things.
 
From what I understand is the first movie is the Hobbit, the one after that will be a "connecting the Hobbit to LOTR movies".
 
Fantastic. Not like there isn't any connection there already or anything like that...

[quote name='David85']From what I understand is the first movie is the Hobbit, the one after that will be a "connecting the Hobbit to LOTR movies".[/quote]
 
[quote name='RegalSin2020']1. The Hobbit was never made for starters it is too much Harry Potter. The thing about Harry Potter and the Hobbit is that they start off as children and for children which brings us to Conan.

Conan the book he was a child into slaverly camps and then blah blah became a man.

If they showed Conan the boy growing up do you think they would have created a Movie for a man. Then agian the chapters of Conan childhood exisists?

Conan like the Hobbit and LOTR had generations of children into adults.

Now back to the topic of LOTR they showed the LOTR series rather then the Hobbit series fearing it would turn into a childish Willow series.

If you don't remember Willow this is the reason they never made the movie the Hobbit.

The Hobbit over comes many challenges but when compared to the challenges of the LOTR series the Hobbit looks like Legend of Zelda the adventure of Young Link.

So again LOTR went a couple pages ahead of itself to make an advance at the
Conan look of things.[/quote]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but please keep posting. There is some weird enjoyment that comes out of reading your posts.
 
[quote name='David85']From what I understand is the first movie is the Hobbit, the one after that will be a "connecting the Hobbit to LOTR movies".[/quote]
Umm...which book would that be then?
 
[quote name='MidnightRain']This is not cool. I don't think they can hand this project over to another director and expect to get the same quality as The Lord of the Rings. It's not going to happen, especially if WETA won't be on board.

The second prequel film they mentioned in the article interests me, though. The Silmarillion, perhaps? (Hopefully not something along the lines of The Adventures of Young Frodo Baggins...)[/QUOTE]

The Silmarillion was pieced together after Tolkein's death and takes place thousands (?) of years before Frodo and Bilbo. I could be wrong about this though I haven't looked at the book in years.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']I have no idea what you're talking about, but please keep posting. There is some weird enjoyment that comes out of reading your posts.[/QUOTE]


I have narrowed the orogons of his odd posts down to two possibilities:

a) He speaks a different language and is using a translator.

or

b) he is a robot.
 
[quote name='UnderwaterMadman']I have narrowed the orogons of his odd posts down to two possibilities:

a) He speaks a different language and is using a translator.

or

b) he is a robot.[/quote]

Isn't that the same thing? Robots have to change their binary langauge to english.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']I have no idea what you're talking about, but please keep posting. There is some weird enjoyment that comes out of reading your posts.[/quote]

Tx, you just saved me a post.

I think Hobbit for more Willow like Hally Potter wars, but that's just me.
 
[quote name='RegalSin2020']1. The Hobbit was never made for starters it is too much Harry Potter. The thing about Harry Potter and the Hobbit is that they start off as children and for children which brings us to Conan.

Conan the book he was a child into slaverly camps and then blah blah became a man.

If they showed Conan the boy growing up do you think they would have created a Movie for a man. Then agian the chapters of Conan childhood exisists?

Conan like the Hobbit and LOTR had generations of children into adults.

Now back to the topic of LOTR they showed the LOTR series rather then the Hobbit series fearing it would turn into a childish Willow series.

If you don't remember Willow this is the reason they never made the movie the Hobbit.

The Hobbit over comes many challenges but when compared to the challenges of the LOTR series the Hobbit looks like Legend of Zelda the adventure of Young Link.

So again LOTR went a couple pages ahead of itself to make an advance at the
Conan look of things.[/quote]Actually Frodo is not in The Hobbit, at all. It's Bilbo's story.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']Tx, you just saved me a post.

I think Hobbit for more Willow like Hally Potter wars, but that's just me.[/QUOTE]

Intriguing.....

wait, what?
 
I think an additional prequel to The Hobbit is unnecessary and stupid. But being as The Hobbit is such a different story from LOTR, it doesn;t bother me that someone else might be directing it, as long as they are good. Let them consider it a different project, it was a completely different project from LOTR as far as the author was concerned. My loyalty is to the author, not Peter Jackson.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']Umm...which book would that be then?[/quote]It is no book, unless you were to make a film of other works by Tolkien and his history of Middle-Earth. But doing such would be more of a documentary than an actual story, and would be disappointing to most audiences.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Maybe I won't feel like falling asleep while watching it then![/quote]Meh, I think Peter Jackson did a good job if you compare it to the actual book. I believe he would have done a good job with The Hobbit as well, which is a much more fast-paced and action-packed story and would not come out to be a war film at all until the very end. But IMO the reason people are concerned about a change of directors is that it would change the feel of The Hobbit from LOTR. Which is something that will change anyway if the director stays loyal to actual Book. That being said, I have no problem with a change of directors. I'm not happy about it either. I pretty much don;t care as long as whoever does it stays true to the book.

An additional prequel coming between the two, however, I do have a problem with, as they would have to make up a story from scratch. And if they were to make a "young frodo" type movie, I don;t anticipate much success there either and if anyone were to see it, I think it would detract from the series as a whole.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']Umm...which book would that be then?[/QUOTE]

None, they would mix thing together and make a movie not based on any one book.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Maybe I won't feel like falling asleep while watching it then![/QUOTE]

I would categorically disagree with you. I felt Return of the King was 10, maybe 20 minutes too long (this is the theatrical version). It didn't need to go into
the life of the hobbits after returning to the Shire
. But otherwise, I was hooked on all the movies from start to finish. That's how you know a director knows his/her trade.:)
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Maybe I won't feel like falling asleep while watching it then![/QUOTE]


Me too. I quite literally fell asleep for about 20 minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Me too. I quite literally fell asleep for about 20 minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring.[/QUOTE]

fuck all of you.

Movies were awesome! Peter Jackson isn't directing the hobbit but he is directing the movie "Most kick ass movie maker in my lifetime", starring me and Peter. And a unicorn.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']fuck all of you.

Movies were awesome! Peter Jackson isn't directing the hobbit but he is directing the movie "Most kick ass movie maker in my lifetime", starring me and Peter. And a unicorn.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I didn't say all 3 were bad. I thought The Two Towers kicked all different kinds of ass so I figured Return of the King would too... Well it was better than Fellowship but nowhere near as good as Two Towers.
 
Funny thing is they were all written as one book. Damn publisher cut it into 3. Actually, the movies don;t actually stop and begin where the volumes stop and begin. And as long as they were there was still a lot missing from the movies that were in the books. But what can I say, no one is perfect. peter Jackson did a good job overall.
 
[quote name='David85']King Kong was about an hour too long too. I guess PJ has never heard of the edit button.[/QUOTE]
The first hour could easily have been cut and made it a much more enjoyable movie.
 
[quote name='zewone']The first hour could easily have been cut and made it a much more enjoyable movie.[/QUOTE]

Or he could have made it justa straight monster movie instead of a drama, horror, romance movie
 
[quote name='The Omniscient Lemon']It is no book, unless you were to make a film of other works by Tolkien and his history of Middle-Earth. But doing such would be more of a documentary than an actual story, and would be disappointing to most audiences.[/quote]

[quote name='David85']None, they would mix thing together and make a movie not based on any one book.[/quote]

That's what I meant. Of course I, the LOTR/Middle-Earth nerd that I am know s that there is no book in between The Hobbit and the LOTR series. I was just saying that I think it's a stupid idea and the studio should not even dare. I know that they could do the Silmarillion into a movie, but that would have to be one damn long movie or at least a very serialized version of it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Hey, I didn't say all 3 were bad. I thought The Two Towers kicked all different kinds of ass so I figured Return of the King would too... Well it was better than Fellowship but nowhere near as good as Two Towers.[/quote]

I love the Battle of Helm's Deep and The Two Towers is my favorite book of the series, but I must admit that the way that Peter Jackson presented The Return of the King is near perfect and could usurp my favorite book as my favorite movie of the series. The battle at the end with the ghosts, the elephantes, wild men, everything was perfection. Acting, Special Effects, everything.
 
[quote name='hiccupleftovers']That's what I meant. Of course I, the LOTR/Middle-Earth nerd that I am know s that there is no book in between The Hobbit and the LOTR series. I was just saying that I think it's a stupid idea and the studio should not even dare. I know that they could do the Silmarillion into a movie, but that would have to be one damn long movie or at least a very serialized version of it.[/QUOTE]


I think it's dumb too, but it will make like a half billion dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top