Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well since Del Toro exited "stage left.. even" it looks like Jackson was left holding the bag.

Which I think is a great thing.

Can't wait to see ther hobbits on film again.

linky--
http://www.rttnews.com/Content/EntertainmentNews.aspx?Section=2&Id=1349649&SM=1

GG

that means is dead right now.

i don't think so
i think GW is going to create a hobbit game to supplement the LotR game

Isn't the Hobbit still tied to a studio thats filing or filed? Good luck.

Great. If PJ does make it we can plan on too much CGI. He made better movies when he just used the CGI to enhance things, rather than making absurd scenes (like 3 t-rexes chasing king kong through the vines...or the green blob undead...etc etc)

wasn't the Hobbit supposed to be split into two films with the second dealing with 'other exciting events'?

I'll be glad if this is shelved.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

NoToTheMan wrote:i don't think so
i think GW is going to create a hobbit game to supplement the LotR game

They made the battle of five armies game...but that doesn't really count.

LOTR were good films that I enjoyed, but a lot of people said were very boring and about as exciting as watching two flies feth. However, seeing as most movies that come out in the theatre nowadays are double plus gak, in the parlance of our times, I'd actually go and see 'The Hobbit' and 'Other Exciting Adventures'. But I don't expect them anytime soon. I'm just praying that PJ doesn't get Lucasitis and snatch a big defeat out of the jaws of victory in the prequel department.

Hmmm wasn't expecting all the hate.

I thought the LOTR trilogy was one of the best series of movies of all time, and I rate The Fellowship of the Ring as one of my favorites if not THE favorite movie of mine.

And King Kong was pretty good as well....I don't know what the problem with the dinosaur fight was.

People really need to get a grip and realize that there is no such thing as a perfect movie.

GG

Fellowship was the awesome, Two Towers was the suck, Return of the King was irritating in parts but good in others.

I hope the hobbit is good because it was one of my favourite books growing up.

I enjoyed the movies. While they kept true to the spirit of the books, certain edits had to be done to keep the movies from running 4.5 hours each. He'll do a good job with the hobbit.

I did not miss Tom Bombadill in the movies, for example. I swear Tolkien was high when he wrote that chapter.

I did not like Faramir taking Frodo towards his city in the movie. In this book, this was a key point to show that Faramir and Boromir were fundamentally different. Faramir understood the flaw in trying to use the ring.

Anywho, the nay sayers can suck it.

Khornholio wrote:LOTR were good films that I enjoyed, but a lot of people said were very boring and about as exciting as watching two flies feth. However, seeing as most movies that come out in the theatre nowadays are double plus gak, in the parlance of our times, I'd actually go and see 'The Hobbit' and 'Other Exciting Adventures'. But I don't expect them anytime soon. I'm just praying that PJ doesn't get Lucasitis and snatch a big defeat out of the jaws of victory in the prequel department.

I am big Tolkien fan and I didn't find much wrong with with Pete Jackson's LOTR trilogy (Surfing Legolas and green Undead do stick in my gullet though).

Lucas did what he wanted with the SW prequals regardless of critcial acclaim. Pray, rather, that PJ doesn't go OTT on the darker plot elements within the Hobbit (expect the Necromancer to get 45 minutes of extrapolated story telling at least). I want the bumbling hobbit I remember from being told the story when I was a kid.

^^ You're so right. Surfing Legolas was pretty lame.

I loved all the LOTR films. I didn't see Fellowship in the theatre though. But I did see Two Towers in 8 B. (8 Beers) I remember cheering for Gandalf at the beginning rather loudly. Yes, I was TFG. I thought Return of the King was awesome and a great way to relax after Christmas Dinner after a couple of scoobs in the car.

But I thought King Kong was total meh. I just can't take Jack Black seriously.

generalgrog wrote:Hmmm wasn't expecting all the hate.

I thought the LOTR trilogy was one of the best series of movies of all time, and I rate The Fellowship of the Ring as one of my favorites if not THE favorite movie of mine.

And King Kong was pretty good as well....I don't know what the problem with the dinosaur fight was.

People really need to get a grip and realize that there is no such thing as a perfect movie.

GG

QFT.

Well, apart from the bit about King Kong - it was awwwwright, not good IMO. And it was FAR too long.

Surfing Legolas was hilarious.
The Trilogy was very good imho.

Didn't see King Kong but the film was criticised for being overlong - as confirmed by Albatross.

The bad news for me is that it might delay the Dambusters release.

Surfing down steps on a shield, surfing down the back of a mammoth always bloody surfing!

Anyway. I'm sorry Chibi but you said something about a 'Dambusters' film....................................one one one one one!1
What is this (dare I ask?).

They're remaking The Dambusters? Wow, that COULD be awesome. At least, it will be if they stick to the story instead of making Barnes Wallis an unconventional American free spirit come to shake up the stuffy British establishment and win the war single-handedly. That will REALLY feth me off. It's a British story, let's keep it that way.


SIDEBAR: I wounder what they will call his dog in the new version?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apparently Stephen Fry is writing the script, so forget what I said. This should be proper.

lol
At least he wasn't wearing Bermuda shorts!

Jackson is producing a film of the Dambusters

There are 10(thought it was only 6) full scale replicas of Lancasters in New Zealand, but not sure what the status is at the moment.

Stephen Fry is scripting. Not sure about director.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross don't go there! already caused a stink.
I forget the name suggested but it is a decent compromise imho

Fry was hoping that Gibson's (that is Guy not Mel who apparently was listed for directing AAAARGGHHH!) diminutive name Nigsy will be allowed.

problem is that the name was also the call sign for a successful attack and breaching of the dams!
Any hoo such a discussion will go waaayy OT so please don't

They shouldnt beat around the bush with the dogs name. Like the surviving Dam Busters have said, Gibson wasnt a racist, the orignal name should stand.

Dam busters what are you guys on about?

please could we not discuss that topic here because it will derail the thread about Hobbitses and Jackson films

I regret mentioning it now and apologise Generalgrog

Considering the Hobbit is far more in the way of Fellowship of the ring, rather than the other two books. i.e. less epicness/huge battlescenes and more light hearted band of warriors stuff. I will have high hopes for it. Since fellowship was by far my favourite film of the three.

The epic battles ruined the other two films for me. As aposed to the books where the battles are far more focused on the individuals which was much better. It's for the same reason I have major issue with the three star wars prequels. The fellowship nine vs a horde of goblins: works. Luke skywalker and the outnumbered rogue squadron vs the advancing imperial at at walkers etc: works. A horde of cavalry charging a horde of orks/uruk hai/whatever else: doesn't work. What works even less is the idea that to up the anti in the next movie you just make the battle even bigger and longer.

kronk wrote:I enjoyed the movies. While they kept true to the spirit of the books, certain edits had to be done to keep the movies from running 4.5 hours each. He'll do a good job with the hobbit.

I did not miss Tom Bombadill in the movies, for example. I swear Tolkien was high when he wrote that chapter.

I did not like Faramir taking Frodo towards his city in the movie. In this book, this was a key point to show that Faramir and Boromir were fundamentally different. Faramir understood the flaw in trying to use the ring.

Anywho, the nay sayers can suck it.

Tom Bombadil was a good ommission because people wouldnt understand him. as Tom was a 'god' it will be too hard to avoid the question why wont he kick Saurons arse.
I dont like how Faramirs character was denatured but it was understandable, because he acted out of duty and once he tasted the rings power he got rid of it and Frodo. It was a way of explaining denethors character not Faramirs.
The real characger issue IMHO was Aragorn summarily killing the Mouth of Sauron, Aragorn would never assault an ambassador, it would be completely against his sense of honour to do so, but honour is something poorly understood nowadays.

I tend to agree with whatwhat, in regards to the reasons why FOTR was the better film. However the set piece battles wasn't what hurt the other films IMO. And don't forget that the 2nd hobbit film will have the battle of five armies, so there will be at least 1 massive battle scene in there.

I think what hurt(didn't ruin mind you) the two towers was the insertion of the elves at Helms deep, and the "dwarf tossing". That insertion of comic relief and elven relief undercut the total hopelessness of the situation at helms deep. It cheapened the drama IMO. Again it didn't ruin it for me, but certainly was dissapointing. The two towers opening scene where Gandfalf battled the Balrog was epic, and I thought that Sean Astins portrayal of sam wise gangee was oscar worthy.

The return of the king was better than two towers, Faramirs charge on Osgiliath with the hobbit singing was a beautiful piece of film making.(I know it wasn't in the book that way) I tend to agree that the green undead "cloud" was a bit over done. Again no movie is perfect.

GG

Frazzled wrote:Dam busters what are you guys on about?

Apologies to Chibi but this must be addressed. Frazzie needs educating:

Imagine doing the Star Wars Death Star trench run precision attack with no computer and no force, in an four engined heavy bomber carrying a really dodgy enormously heavy experimental weapon that is spinning rapidly and shaking your aircraft about. That's the Dam Busters..





Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:
The return of the king was better than two towers, Faramirs charge on Osgiliath with the hobbit singing was a beautiful piece of film making.(I know it wasn't in the book that way) I tend to agree that the green undead "cloud" was a bit over done. Again no movie is perfect.

The battle of the Perlennor fields would be relatively boring to film properly. The orcs never got into the city and the Rohirrim never charged the Mumakil, Eowyn and Gandalf challenges provided the best imagery to capitalise on and Jackson didnt waste the opportunity.

It was a long time between reading the books and watching the films for me, so my less than perfect memory was for once a blessing.
It means I can watch the films without comparing to the books, as inevitably there will be changes.
I took the Dwarf tossing stuff as part of Gimli's character. More concerned about losing face to Legolas than the dangerous situation he was in.
The injections of humour are very short, and for me didn't spoil the sense of desparation of the defenders.

I think that the sweep and scale of the landscape and the ever present threat of evil pervaded the screen trilogy was awesome in the original sense of the word.

Frodo and the Fellowship seemed tiny and fragile in comparison.

Chibi has a point. Without occasional light hearted let up, a constant drumbeat of depression would turn a movie into a buzzkill. I mean we areb talking movies about dwarves and elves and trees that are alive here.

Frazzled wrote:Chibi has a point. Without occasional light hearted let up, a constant drumbeat of depression would turn a movie into a buzzkill. I mean we areb talking movies about dwarves and elves and trees that are alive here.

Well I think they had enough comic relief from the pippen and merry interchanges with Treebeard. That's what Tolkien used them for. It just seemed out of place to use Gimli as comic relief in that situation.

GG

True but Helms Deep was only a small portion of the book, wheras it was a much larger portion of the film. It needed breaking up somehow.

Orlanth wrote:True but Helms Deep was only a small portion of the book, wheras it was a much larger portion of the film. It needed breaking up somehow.

Agreed. besides I mostly wanted the orks to waste Merry (or was it Pippin, the one who went to Gondor) in an extremely unpleasant manner. Couldn't stand the character in the books or movies.

Frazzled wrote:

Orlanth wrote:True but Helms Deep was only a small portion of the book, wheras it was a much larger portion of the film. It needed breaking up somehow.

Agreed. besides I mostly wanted the orks to waste Merry (or was it Pippin, the one who went to Gondor) in an extremely unpleasant manner. Couldn't stand the character in the books or movies.

Aye, id have thrown the useless little gak down that well in the mines!